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: Richard on 12 Dec 2008 17:58 On Dec 13, 9:45 am, PR <paul.rauler...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 12, 12:28 am, Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 12, 5:15 pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: > > > > On 2008-12-10 22:22:57 -0600, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> said: > > > > > 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 > > > > OpenCOBOL is most likley going to make you very happy. And it is free > > > of course. > > > Go give it a try. :) > > > > By the way, C is pretty much based upon PDP-11 Macro Assembler. > > > Where did that come from ? C was derived from B which was a > > simplified version of BCPL. BCPL stands for 'Basic CPL' (Basic as in > > fundemental and not BASIC). CPL was Combined Programming Language, a > > combination of APL (Atlas, not the IBM APL) amd ACL (Atlas Commercial > > Language) with much influence from Algol 60, produced at the Atlas > > Laboratory. > > C was written at Bell Labs from 1969 to 1972, on an early PDP-7 and > later, around 1970, on a PDP-11. C was to be the systems programming > language for Unix. C does owe much to BCPL as a grandparent language. > The 'B' language in it's lineage is still a little open to debate - > instead of a contraction of BCP it might be a contraction of the > Bonnie or BON language. You can guess who that language is named after > I suppose. However, there is no doubt that B was influenced by BCPL. > However, C owes much more to it's PDP parentage. It was originally > designed to be a language that was close to the machine, and in fact > it is. There are plenty of 1 to 1 references to PDP Macro language in > it, the most obvious being the increment and decrement use of ++ and > --. Pointer arithmetic being another. > > Just go write a few thousand lines of PDP-11 Macro Assembler and you > will never again doubt that C is in fact a "portable assembler" and > based upon PDP-11 Macro. > From "The Bell System Technical Journal" July-August 1978 in an article "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan, Ritchie an Johnson: "C was originally written for the PDP-11 under Unix ...", not PDP-7 though the original Unix was written on and for that (or was it a PDP-9 as some source have it). "... but the language is not tied to any particular hardware or operating system." "C was developed for the PDP-11 on the Unix system in 1972." You may note that many Unix applications were written in C before Unix itself was rewritten, In fact the 'Unix Portability Project' in which substancial portions of Unix were written in C targetted the Interdata 8/32'. "The C language of today is the product of several years of evolution. Many of its most important ideas stem from the considerably older, but still quite vital, language BCPL developed by Martin Richards. The influence of BCPL on C proceeded indirectly through the language B, which was written by Ken Thompson in 1970 for the first Unix system on the PDP-11." "Although neither B nor C could really be considered dialects of BCPL, both share several characteristic features with it: ....." "B and BCPL differ mainly in their syntax, ..." [much discussion of B, BCPL and C including examples follows] What needs to be established is, for example, when PDP Macro Assembler gained the use of '++' and ---' operators. One may well have copied from the other, or it may have been common usage in other languages of the time as well. > -Paul > > > > It > > > isn't hard, you just have to master a few little details. Now using it > > > with a GUI and such is very much *not* simple. > > > If you want to move away from COBOL, look at RealBasic. It is simple, > > > easy, and works on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. $99 is not free, but well > > > worth it. No runtime costs. > > > > -Paul > >
From: Anonymous on 12 Dec 2008 20:27 In article <ghufml31br2(a)news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:01:50 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >>> Really? I thought that using a language which is assembled into object >>> languange with a one-to-one statement correlation 'is like using assembley >>> language', while using a language which gets a single statement compiled >>> into one or more object language ('machine code') statements isn't. >> >> I had a macro-assembler for the Atari 800 in which I could write what >> looked like Basic, and then assemble it. It was kind of fun, but >> not as much fun as Action! or Forth which I had for the same computer. > >The distinction between assembled and compiled languages is vague at best. [snip] >Which of those is assembly language? I'd need to know which of them existed when I was taught the differences between first- (machine code), second- (assembled, one-to-one correspondance) and third-generation (one-to-many) languages... things many have changed since I received such instructions. (I was taught - in another class - about a bit of land between Poland and Russia named 'Grodny G'bernya', literally 'border provice'. The joke was 'which border, Russian or Poland?', the no-answer-at-all was 'What day is it, Monday or Thursday?') DD
From: Anonymous on 12 Dec 2008 20:31 In article <e4dbea18-d784-4d28-9821-b8d93a69f808(a)k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >On Dec 13, 12:01�am, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> In article ><d9d518da-09d2-48d5-8382-81f0f3fe9...(a)i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Richard �<rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >> >On Dec 12, 5:04�am, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>�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". >> >> Really? �I thought that using a language which is assembled into object >> languange with a one-to-one statement correlation 'is like using assembley >> language', > >No, that _IS_ using assembly language. Oh... so 'using assembley language' is not 'like using assembley language', I guess. > >A GOTO has a one-to-one statement correlation and is _LIKE_ using >assembley language', Never mind the sudden dropping of the 85 Standard Constructs... I'd have to see some PMAPs... errrrr.... LISTS.... and other such listings before I could agree or disagree with that assertion. DD
From: Anonymous on 12 Dec 2008 20:42 In article <ghufmm41br2(a)news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> the first resonates; as I recall it Ritchie designed C at Bell Labs (back >> when it was Bell Labs, early 1970s) as a replacement for Assembley >> mnemonics. > >Compiled languages in general were designed as a replacement for >assembly programming. That doesn't make them "like assembly". It was not my intention to give that impression, Mr Wojcik, and I apologise for my clumsiness in having done so. > >> It is a compiled language, true, but still provides low-level >> system/memory/device access in an Assembley-like manner. > >No, it doesn't. Some C implementations may extend the language to >provide direct access to memory and devices (whatever that may mean on >the platform), but that's not part of the C language. If C, in fact, does *not* 'provide low-level access to memory' and is does *not* have a 'primary use is for "system programming", including implementing operating systems and embedded system applications, due to a combination of desirable characteristics such as code portability and efficiency, ability to access specific hardware addresses, ability to "pun" types to match externally imposed data access requirements' then it would seem that I am incorrect. (quoted material above taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language) ... me, I'se jes' a COBOL-codin' fool) DD
From: Paul on 12 Dec 2008 22:34
On 2008-12-12 16:58:53 -0600, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> said: > On Dec 13, 9:45�am, PR <paul.rauler...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 12, 12:28�am, Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Dec 12, 5:15�pm, Paul <paul-nospamatall.rauler...(a)mac.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 2008-12-10 22:22:57 -0600, "Paul H" <NoSpamphobergNoS...(a)att.net> > said: >> >>>>> I've been using MicroFocus Net Express for many years, but now I wa > nt to >>>>> write a small application that would sell for maybe $20.00. �MF w > ould charge >>>>> a run-time fee to each user, so I need to select a different Compil > er. >>>>> Where can I find a list of inexpensive compilers, with ratings? � > Does such a >>>>> list exist? �TIA, Paul >> >>>> OpenCOBOL is most likley going to make you very happy. And it is free >>>> of course. >>>> Go give it a try. :) >> >>>> By the way, C is pretty much based upon PDP-11 Macro Assembler. >> >>> Where did that come from ? C was derived from B which was a >>> simplified version of BCPL. BCPL stands for 'Basic CPL' (Basic as in >>> fundemental and not BASIC). CPL was Combined Programming Language, a >>> combination of APL (Atlas, not the IBM APL) amd ACL (Atlas Commercial >>> Language) with much influence from Algol 60, produced at the Atlas >>> Laboratory. >> >> C was written at Bell Labs from 1969 to 1972, on an early PDP-7 and >> later, around 1970, on a PDP-11. C was to be the systems programming >> language for Unix. C does owe much to BCPL as a grandparent language. >> The 'B' language in it's lineage is still a little open to debate - >> instead of a contraction of BCP it might be a contraction of the >> Bonnie or BON language. You can guess who that language is named after >> I suppose. However, there is no doubt that B was influenced by BCPL. > >> However, C owes much more to it's PDP parentage. It was originally >> designed to be a language that was close to the machine, and in fact >> it is. There are plenty of 1 to 1 references to PDP Macro language in >> it, the most obvious being the increment and decrement use of ++ and >> --. Pointer arithmetic being another. >> >> Just go write a few thousand lines of PDP-11 Macro Assembler and you >> will never again doubt that C is in fact a "portable assembler" and >> based upon PDP-11 Macro. >> > > From "The Bell System Technical Journal" July-August 1978 in an > article "The C Programming Language" by Kernighan, Ritchie an Johnson: > > "C was originally written for the PDP-11 under Unix ...", not PDP-7 > though the original Unix was written on and for that (or was it a > PDP-9 as some source have it). > > "... but the language is not tied to any particular hardware or > operating system." > > "C was developed for the PDP-11 on the Unix system in 1972." > > You may note that many Unix applications were written in C before Unix > itself was rewritten, In fact the 'Unix Portability Project' in which > substancial portions of Unix were written in C targetted the Interdata > 8/32'. > > > "The C language of today is the product of several years of evolution. > Many of its most important ideas stem from the considerably older, but > still quite vital, language BCPL developed by Martin Richards. The > influence of BCPL on C proceeded indirectly through the language B, > which was written by Ken Thompson in 1970 for the first Unix system on > the PDP-11." > > "Although neither B nor C could really be considered dialects of BCPL, > both share several characteristic features with it: > > ...." > > "B and BCPL differ mainly in their syntax, ..." > > [much discussion of B, BCPL and C including examples follows] > > What needs to be established is, for example, when PDP Macro Assembler > gained the use of '++' and ---' operators. One may well have copied > from the other, or it may have been common usage in other languages of > the time as well. Not really- PDP-11s *always* had the ++ and -- operators; the PDP-7 did not. It did, however, have some memory locations that would autoincrement with an indirect reference, and this is how the operators got into B- or rather into NB which was the direct ancestor of C. You are correct (and in fact, I have the same reference journal here...) that C didn't become popular until it landed on and was developed more for the PDP-11. However, B and NB were actually usually compiled on a GECOS machine - I want to say GE-635, but that is from memory and I may be wrong. There was a lot of influence from there as well. You might want to look up a later reference as well; I suggest _History of Programming Languages-II; my copy was published by Addison-Wesly back in 1996. The ISBN is: 0-201-89502-1. Dennis Ritchie has a paper published in there that clears a lot of this up. :) Also the definitive book on BCPL is _BCPL: The Language and its Compiler by Marty Richards. No ISBN, but published by Cambridge University Press in 1979. Co-Author was a chap named Strevens. I picked up my copy for $1 at a used book store. <grin> There is supposed to be an earlier manual or paper on it by Richards, from sometimes in the 1960's, but I have never seen it. I would love to find an electonic copy of that. And just to tie the thread back to COBOL a tiny bit- a lot of Mainframe Assembler people learned Assembler by studying what the COBOL compilers generated. It ain't NOTHING like PDP assembler... or C! :) -Paul > > > >> -Paul >> >>>> It >>>> isn't hard, you just have to master a few little details. Now using i > t >>>> with a GUI and such is very much *not* simple. >>>> If you want to move away from COBOL, look at RealBasic. It is simple, >>>> easy, and works on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. $99 is not free, but we > ll >>>> worth it. No runtime costs. >> >>>> -Paul |