I need a new compiler...
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: COBOL/CICS/DB2 - COBOL for MVS and compile option DYNAM -solution from 2006
Next: Still one more Overlapping operands test
From: Robert on 11 Dec 2008 12:37 On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:04:02 -0600, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoSpam(a)att.net> wrote: >Thanks Pete, >But your alternatives mostly intimidate me. Isn't using C or Java like >coding in assembly language? No, C is like Cobol, not assembly language. People who say C is like assembly language are the ones who were frustrated by pointers. But Pete said C#, which is like Java. Both are OO, and slightly higher level of abstraction than Cobol. > If I stay with COBOL, none of the alternatives >offer the debugging environment like MF's. Animating, breakpoints, value >monitoring, etc. These make me productive. MF's anim command line debugger is crude compared to gdb. MF's NetExpress GUI debugger isn't as good as Microsoft's various workbenches such as DevStudio formerly VisDev. > What do you think about Clarion? It's not a mainstream language, has roots in 4GL code generation. --- end of reply --- >I did buy a copy a few years ago, but gave up trying to learn to >use it. Maybe I'll give it another look. >Paul > >"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message >news:6qcd9oFbr6ltU1(a)mid.individual.net... >Paul H wrote: >> I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I want >> to write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. MF >> would charge a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a >> different Compiler. Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, >> with ratings? Does such a list exist? TIA, Paul >> >> I neglected to mention that I need to use it in a Vista environment. >> Thanks. > >Paul, > >given the criteria, have you thought about using Open COBOL? > >(The price is pretty right) > >One reason I moved to Fujitsu was because of MicroFocus Runtime Fees. (The >main reason was because they shafted the VISOC user base... but that's a >long time ago and can fairly be considered water under the bridge.) > >Later of course, I moved off COBOL altogether and today enjoy a free >compiler, a free IDE that is light years ahead of the COBOL one, and instant >support directly from the Internet for free. > >Nevertheless, if you really don't want to change languages, Open COBOL might >be an option worth investigating. > >There are more existing lines of code written for Open Source now, than >there are for COBOL in the World. (Some of the Open Source may be written in >COBOL, but it would be an insignificant amount.) > >Even though the Open Source movement has failed to really penetrate the >commercial marketplace to any significant extent (so far...) it is well >worth keeping an eye on what they are doing. > >I like their approach; most of what they are writing is components and they >are getting a very good uptake for them. > >Here's what they claim: >http://www.eweek.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=50786&pop=1&hide_ads=1&page=0&hide_js=1 > >I have been saying for a long time that the age of source code being King is >gone. People are using Open Source binaries without requiring the source and >most open "source" is NOT source at all. > >Although I have bought and paid for the (old) fujitsu NetCOBOL and >PowerCOBOL compilers (Not the (new) .NETCOBOL for .NET CLR generating) >compiler, if I didn't have those compilers available and REALLY needed to do >something in COBOL, I'd DEFINITELY have a look at Open COBOL. > >Maybe, if it is a small project, it might be time to consider moving to C#? >You can download the compiler, the IDE, and video tutorials on how to use >them, all for free. The community is very supportive and I've never had a >problem that wasn't solved, usually in minutes. > >Or maybe Java? You can get Eclipse for free and Java is free. Both excellent >and useful alternatives to COBOL > >Whatever you decide, I wish you luck in your enterprise. > >Pete.
From: Richard on 11 Dec 2008 15:02 On Dec 12, 5:04 am, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> wrote: > Thanks Pete, > But your alternatives mostly intimidate me. Isn't using C or Java like > coding in assembly language? If I stay with COBOL, none of the alternatives > offer the debugging environment like MF's. Animating, breakpoints, value > monitoring, etc. These make me productive. What do you think about > Clarion? I did buy a copy a few years ago, but gave up trying to learn to > use it. Maybe I'll give it another look. > Paul > > "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > > news:6qcd9oFbr6ltU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > Paul H wrote: > > I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I want > > to write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. MF > > would charge a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a > > different Compiler. Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, > > with ratings? Does such a list exist? TIA, Paul > > > I neglected to mention that I need to use it in a Vista environment. > > Thanks. > > Paul, > > given the criteria, have you thought about using Open COBOL? > > (The price is pretty right) > > One reason I moved to Fujitsu was because of MicroFocus Runtime Fees. (The > main reason was because they shafted the VISOC user base... but that's a > long time ago and can fairly be considered water under the bridge.) > > Later of course, I moved off COBOL altogether and today enjoy a free > compiler, a free IDE that is light years ahead of the COBOL one, and instant > support directly from the Internet for free. > > Nevertheless, if you really don't want to change languages, Open COBOL might > be an option worth investigating. > > There are more existing lines of code written for Open Source now, than > there are for COBOL in the World. (Some of the Open Source may be written in > COBOL, but it would be an insignificant amount.) > > Even though the Open Source movement has failed to really penetrate the > commercial marketplace to any significant extent (so far...) it is well > worth keeping an eye on what they are doing. > > I like their approach; most of what they are writing is components and they > are getting a very good uptake for them. > > Here's what they claim:http://www.eweek.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=50786&pop... > > I have been saying for a long time that the age of source code being King is > gone. People are using Open Source binaries without requiring the source and > most open "source" is NOT source at all. You are confused. While the article says that many projects are distributing compiled binaries the source for those is available. > Although I have bought and paid for the (old) fujitsu NetCOBOL and > PowerCOBOL compilers (Not the (new) .NETCOBOL for .NET CLR generating) > compiler, if I didn't have those compilers available and REALLY needed to do > something in COBOL, I'd DEFINITELY have a look at Open COBOL. > > Maybe, if it is a small project, it might be time to consider moving to C#? > You can download the compiler, the IDE, and video tutorials on how to use > them, all for free. The community is very supportive and I've never had a > problem that wasn't solved, usually in minutes. > > Or maybe Java? You can get Eclipse for free and Java is free. Both excellent > and useful alternatives to COBOL > > Whatever you decide, I wish you luck in your enterprise. > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Richard on 11 Dec 2008 15:33 On Dec 12, 5:04 am, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> wrote: > Thanks Pete, > But your alternatives mostly intimidate me. You should note that while OpenCobol, Cobol-IT, tinyCobol are mostly ANS85 they may not have features that you think of a 'normal'. MicroFocus has many extensions, such as X/Open and ADIS. These are not standard ANS85 Cobol and may not exist in other compilers. For example in Microfocus you can ACCEPT and DISPLAY AT position (or variations such as LINE COLUMN) to produce screen interactive programs. In Microfocus (and other commercial products) you can have shared files with record locking. These are not standard ANS85 and may not be available in other compilers, or may not work the same as MF or other commercial products (RM, Acu, etc). > Isn't using C or Java like > coding in assembly language? No. Using GOTO or not using scope terminators in Cobol is "like using assembly language". > If I stay with COBOL, none of the alternatives > offer the debugging environment like MF's. Animating, breakpoints, value > monitoring, etc. These make me productive. > What do you think about > Clarion? I did buy a copy a few years ago, but gave up trying to learn to > use it. Maybe I'll give it another look. > Paul >
From: Pete Dashwood on 11 Dec 2008 17:36 Richard wrote: > On Dec 12, 5:04 am, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> wrote: >> Thanks Pete, >> But your alternatives mostly intimidate me. Isn't using C or Java >> like >> coding in assembly language? If I stay with COBOL, none of the >> alternatives >> offer the debugging environment like MF's. Animating, breakpoints, >> value >> monitoring, etc. These make me productive. What do you think about >> Clarion? I did buy a copy a few years ago, but gave up trying to >> learn to >> use it. Maybe I'll give it another look. >> Paul >> >> "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message >> >> news:6qcd9oFbr6ltU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> Paul H wrote: >>> I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I >>> want to write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. >>> MF would charge a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a >>> different Compiler. Where can I find a list of inexpensive >>> compilers, with ratings? Does such a list exist? TIA, Paul >> >>> I neglected to mention that I need to use it in a Vista environment. >>> Thanks. >> >> Paul, >> >> given the criteria, have you thought about using Open COBOL? >> >> (The price is pretty right) >> >> One reason I moved to Fujitsu was because of MicroFocus Runtime >> Fees. (The >> main reason was because they shafted the VISOC user base... but >> that's a >> long time ago and can fairly be considered water under the bridge.) >> >> Later of course, I moved off COBOL altogether and today enjoy a free >> compiler, a free IDE that is light years ahead of the COBOL one, and >> instant >> support directly from the Internet for free. >> >> Nevertheless, if you really don't want to change languages, Open >> COBOL might >> be an option worth investigating. >> >> There are more existing lines of code written for Open Source now, >> than >> there are for COBOL in the World. (Some of the Open Source may be >> written in >> COBOL, but it would be an insignificant amount.) >> >> Even though the Open Source movement has failed to really penetrate >> the >> commercial marketplace to any significant extent (so far...) it is >> well >> worth keeping an eye on what they are doing. >> >> I like their approach; most of what they are writing is components >> and they >> are getting a very good uptake for them. >> >> Here's what they >> claim:http://www.eweek.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=50786&pop... >> >> I have been saying for a long time that the age of source code being >> King is >> gone. People are using Open Source binaries without requiring the >> source and >> most open "source" is NOT source at all. > > You are confused. Apparently, you like to think that. Never let the facts get in the way of your perception. > While the article says that many projects are > distributing compiled binaries the source for those is available. I did not say otherwise. The article also says that the BINARIES are being freely distriuted which is all I commented on. Not everyone who uses the binaries is downloading the source. They have no need to, and that was my point. However, they CAN do so if they wish. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: James J. Gavan on 11 Dec 2008 19:08
Paul H wrote: > I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I want to > write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. MF would charge > a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a different Compiler. > Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, with ratings? Does such a > list exist? TIA, Paul > > I neglected to mention that I need to use it in a Vista environment. > Thanks. > So you've got it working with Vista :-). Now you will have to check this out specifically - a LONnnnngggg time ago, M/F upped the ante on Net Express by telling us they wanted more 'loot'. They obviously got some very nasty messages back, because they relented, somewhat. Again check specifics, but it goes something like this - if you were using N/E V 3.1, up to Fixpack # ?, and your sale price to customers was LESS than $1,000 - then you were OK - they introduced an amnesty clause. Now assuming one upgraded to N/E V 5.1, I'm not sure that those same rules would apply. I haven't seem him in writing for quite a while now but probably the best man to contact is Alan Wheeler, who was the M/F spokesman for the 'Amnesty' clause. The last e-mail address I have for him is :- Alan.Wheeler(a)microfocus.com No need to rush elsewhere, ignoring your existing skills with M/F COBOL, if the 'Amnesty' clause applies to you. (Bearing in mind that both Acu and RM(Liant), are now both owned by Micro Focus, it doesn't leave you much choice if you want to stick with a 'professional' compiler - just Fujitsu - but that's not cheap now either). Jimmy |