OpenCOBOL Programmer's Guide
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: ANN: OpenCOBOL Programmer's Guide
Next: Justice for all
From: Pete Dashwood on 8 Feb 2010 04:28 Brian Tiffin wrote: > There is a new COBOL manual in town. > > A very complete programmer's guide for OpenCOBOL. This robust > compiler now comes with robust documentation. > > http://add1tocobol.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=73 > > 200+ pages of beautiful, printable documentation suitable for new and > expert COBOL coders. > > Cheers, > Brian Tiffin Congratulations, Brian. Wish you well with it. Like Jimmy, I would need to see support for OO before I could consider it viable. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: john on 10 Feb 2010 10:33 On Feb 8, 4:28 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Brian Tiffin wrote: > > There is a new COBOL manual in town. > > > A very complete programmer's guide for OpenCOBOL. This robust > > compiler now comes with robust documentation. > > >http://add1tocobol.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=73 > > > 200+ pages of beautiful, printable documentation suitable for new and > > expert COBOL coders. > > > Cheers, > > Brian Tiffin > > Congratulations, Brian. > > Wish you well with it. > > Like Jimmy, I would need to see support for OO before I could consider it > viable. > > Pete. > > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." It seems we now have two audiences, the proceduralists (of which I am one) and the Object Oriented folks. And COBOL itself exists in two quite different forms. I suggest that trying to cram both forms into one compiler makes it too heavy, both for the compiler writer and the programmer. I remember Grace Hopper saying at a ACM meeting that she did not want to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN was good for for nor use FORTRAN for the things COBOL was good for. Some of the code I see on this list is quite unreadable to me. And I have been doing COBOL for many years. What the Standards people have done is create a totally new language and called it COBOL. I would have a better chance of reading Java or Php, two languages I do not know, than something written in Objective COBOL. We are also feeding the vices of the academic community. They never liked COBOL to start with. They taught students to code in a clumsy fashion that mimicked other languages, nested ifs beyond all reason and the like. I hired some of these folks years ago and their real education began on the job. The virtues and vices of the OO approach to programming are not the point. COBOL was designed so that programmer A could pick up a program written some years back by programmer B and have some hope of understanding what was going on. That is the real world situation. Programs need not only to be written but maintained. Systematically the standards people have added new features and subtracted old ones in COBOL 2002 and following to the point that it is now a different language. Old programs may still compile. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Standards people have created a tower of babel, where we can no longer understand each other. The C progamming language has now three defined variants. One can write in C, Objective C, and C++. Each is considered a separate entity, although the same base compiler supports each, just as a C compiler supports Open Cobol, Tcl and so on. I have no hope of dissuading those who want to turn COBOL into something different, a clone of some other language, but I do suggest that we fork the language. Open Cobol and Tiny Cobol are the only successful non-commercial COBOL compilers out there. The existence of a manual for one of them is a significant achievement. I will be happy to print out the manual. And I am sorry that there is not an internet group for those who view, as I do, COBOL 85 as the last real COBOL, true to the original design objectives of a writable language, a readable language, and a business orientation. Maybe I'll start that group. John Culleton CCP
From: Bill Gunshannon on 10 Feb 2010 11:02 In article <7bd3dcc0-272e-4f8d-8332-8b2e8e682772(a)c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, "john(a)wexfordpress.com" <john(a)wexfordpress.com> writes: > On Feb 8, 4:28�am, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> Brian Tiffin wrote: >> > There is a new COBOL manual in town. >> >> > A very complete programmer's guide for OpenCOBOL. �This robust >> > compiler now comes with robust documentation. >> >> >http://add1tocobol.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=73 >> >> > 200+ pages of beautiful, printable documentation suitable for new and >> > expert COBOL coders. >> >> > Cheers, >> > Brian Tiffin >> >> Congratulations, Brian. >> >> Wish you well with it. >> >> Like Jimmy, I would need to see support for OO before I could consider it >> viable. >> >> Pete. >> >> -- >> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." > It seems we now have two audiences, the proceduralists (of which I am > one) and the > Object Oriented folks. And COBOL itself exists in two quite different > forms. I suggest that > trying to cram both forms into one compiler makes it too heavy, both > for the compiler writer and the programmer. > I remember Grace Hopper saying at a ACM meeting that she did not want > to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN was good for for nor use FORTRAN > for the things COBOL was good for. Some of the code I see on this list > is quite unreadable to me. And I have been doing COBOL for many years. > What the Standards people have done is create a totally new language > and called it COBOL. I would have a better chance of reading Java or > Php, two languages I do not know, than something written in Objective > COBOL. > We are also feeding the vices of the academic community. They never > liked COBOL to start with. They taught students to code in a clumsy > fashion that mimicked other languages, nested ifs beyond all reason > and the like. I hired some of these folks years ago and their real > education began on the job. > The virtues and vices of the OO approach to programming are not the > point. COBOL was designed so that programmer A could pick up a program > written some years back by programmer B and have some hope of > understanding what was going on. That is the real world situation. > Programs need not only to be written but maintained. Systematically > the standards people have added new features and subtracted old ones > in COBOL 2002 and following to the point that it is now a different > language. Old programs may still compile. That is not the issue. The > issue is that the Standards people have created a tower of babel, > where we can no longer understand each other. > The C progamming language has now three defined variants. One can > write in C, Objective C, and C++. Each is considered a separate > entity, although the same base compiler supports each, just as a C > compiler supports Open Cobol, Tcl and so on. I have no hope of > dissuading those who want to turn COBOL into something different, a > clone of some other language, but I do suggest that we fork the > language. > Open Cobol and Tiny Cobol are the only successful non-commercial COBOL > compilers out there. The existence of a manual for one of them is a > significant achievement. I will be happy to print out the manual. And > I am sorry that there is not an internet group for those who view, as > I do, COBOL 85 as the last real COBOL, true to the original design > objectives of a writable language, a readable language, and a business > orientation. > Maybe I'll start that group. > John Culleton CCP It seems that I am not the only one who laments what has been done to COBOL (and other languages as well). As one who works in academia, I can agree 100% with John's comments. As for "standards", the Standards Bodies have one and only one real purpose. To perpetuate their own existence and they do that by creating "standards" wether the real world wanted or needed them and usually with total disregard for what the real world is doing. It would be truly interesting to know what percentage of the millions and millions of lines of existing COBOL actually use anything beyond COBOL 85. My guess would be a very small number as shops that use COBOL tend to be more interested in getting their specific job done rather than pushing the paradigm envelope. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Feb 2010 12:35 On 10 Feb 2010 16:02:51 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >It would be truly interesting to know what percentage of the millions >and millions of lines of existing COBOL actually use anything beyond >COBOL 85. My guess would be a very small number as shops that use >COBOL tend to be more interested in getting their specific job done >rather than pushing the paradigm envelope. Simple additions are probably pretty common. The stuff that still looks like CoBOL. But outside of this newsgroup, I have seen zero interest in OO CoBOL. There are other languages that are selected for native OO. Some people recommend OO CoBOL to encapsulate existing code, but in mainframe environments, we find that re-writing is best for major changes. OO is a tool in our arsenal, used when it is appropriate. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Duke Normandin on 10 Feb 2010 13:55
On 2010-02-10, Bill Gunshannon <billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu> wrote: > In article <7bd3dcc0-272e-4f8d-8332-8b2e8e682772(a)c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > "john(a)wexfordpress.com" <john(a)wexfordpress.com> writes: >> On Feb 8, 4:28�am, "Pete Dashwood" >> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> Brian Tiffin wrote: >>> > There is a new COBOL manual in town. >>> >>> > A very complete programmer's guide for OpenCOBOL. �This robust >>> > compiler now comes with robust documentation. >>> >>> >http://add1tocobol.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=73 >>> >>> > 200+ pages of beautiful, printable documentation suitable for new and >>> > expert COBOL coders. >>> >>> > Cheers, >>> > Brian Tiffin >>> >>> Congratulations, Brian. >>> >>> Wish you well with it. >>> >>> Like Jimmy, I would need to see support for OO before I could consider it >>> viable. >>> >>> Pete. >>> >>> -- >>> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." >> It seems we now have two audiences, the proceduralists (of which I am >> one) and the >> Object Oriented folks. And COBOL itself exists in two quite different >> forms. I suggest that >> trying to cram both forms into one compiler makes it too heavy, both >> for the compiler writer and the programmer. >> I remember Grace Hopper saying at a ACM meeting that she did not want >> to use COBOL for the things FORTRAN was good for for nor use FORTRAN >> for the things COBOL was good for. Some of the code I see on this list >> is quite unreadable to me. And I have been doing COBOL for many years. >> What the Standards people have done is create a totally new language >> and called it COBOL. I would have a better chance of reading Java or >> Php, two languages I do not know, than something written in Objective >> COBOL. >> We are also feeding the vices of the academic community. They never >> liked COBOL to start with. They taught students to code in a clumsy >> fashion that mimicked other languages, nested ifs beyond all reason >> and the like. I hired some of these folks years ago and their real >> education began on the job. >> The virtues and vices of the OO approach to programming are not the >> point. COBOL was designed so that programmer A could pick up a program >> written some years back by programmer B and have some hope of >> understanding what was going on. That is the real world situation. >> Programs need not only to be written but maintained. Systematically >> the standards people have added new features and subtracted old ones >> in COBOL 2002 and following to the point that it is now a different >> language. Old programs may still compile. That is not the issue. The >> issue is that the Standards people have created a tower of babel, >> where we can no longer understand each other. >> The C progamming language has now three defined variants. One can >> write in C, Objective C, and C++. Each is considered a separate >> entity, although the same base compiler supports each, just as a C >> compiler supports Open Cobol, Tcl and so on. I have no hope of >> dissuading those who want to turn COBOL into something different, a >> clone of some other language, but I do suggest that we fork the >> language. >> Open Cobol and Tiny Cobol are the only successful non-commercial COBOL >> compilers out there. The existence of a manual for one of them is a >> significant achievement. I will be happy to print out the manual. And >> I am sorry that there is not an internet group for those who view, as >> I do, COBOL 85 as the last real COBOL, true to the original design >> objectives of a writable language, a readable language, and a business >> orientation. >> Maybe I'll start that group. >> John Culleton CCP > > It seems that I am not the only one who laments what has been done to > COBOL (and other languages as well). As one who works in academia, I > can agree 100% with John's comments. As for "standards", the Standards > Bodies have one and only one real purpose. To perpetuate their own > existence and they do that by creating "standards" wether the real > world wanted or needed them and usually with total disregard for what > the real world is doing. > > It would be truly interesting to know what percentage of the millions > and millions of lines of existing COBOL actually use anything beyond > COBOL 85. My guess would be a very small number as shops that use > COBOL tend to be more interested in getting their specific job done > rather than pushing the paradigm envelope. > > bill > I'm a COBOL noob/novice, that wholeheartedly supports you and John with respect to COBOL having been morphed into a multi-paradigm language. I personally want to learn classic, procedural COBOL. If I want to learn OOP, I'll look at Smalltalk, Python, whatever. Although I've got OpenCOBOL set up on my OS X box, I've yet bear down and learn the language. I need some COBOL tasks - anybody need a COBOL code-monkey cheap -- as in free? ;) -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] *** Turner Valley, Alberta, Canada |