Traditional COBOL environment
in [Cobol]
|
From: WangVS on 27 Mar 2010 05:23 On Mar 26, 5:49 am, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <4438cbb8-e9aa-44eb-b9ed-089637b54...(a)35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > WangVS <tjun...(a)tjunker.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > >It's a complete > >environment that turns a Dell PowerEdge server into a > >Wang VS mainframe. COBOL 85 would be the language of > >choice, although it also has a powerful 4GL database. > > Would that '4GL database' happen to be... PACE? > > DD Yes indeed! You are familiar with it? TJ
From: WangVS on 27 Mar 2010 05:28 On Mar 26, 8:39 am, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <813rpqFno...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Pete Dashwood <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > [snip] > > >I am thinking about offering some products to mainframe sites, but the thing > >that stops me currently is that I don't have easy access to an IBM > >mainframe... I could buy time, but if I don't have a prospective client it > >is a risk. I could look for a partnership with someone running a mainframe, > >but I haven't really thought through that option yet, and it would need to > >be attractive and fair to both parties. A solution might be to get something > >that does a faithful emulation. (Obviously, I'm not going to buy an IBM > >mainframe on spec... :-)) > > For research: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_emulator > > For downloads: > > http://www.hercules-390.org/ > > DD We looked at Hercules before writing our virtualization of the Wang VS, as the VS was originally based on IBM 360/370. We found Hercules to be too messy and to have no value for us. We wrote our present product from scratch. It is a perfect emulation of the Wang VS machine and runs all Wang VS software, from the VS OS all the way through user applications, with zero conversions and zero workarounds. We upgrade a customer usually by restoring his VS backkup tapes to the New VS. TJ
From: WangVS on 27 Mar 2010 05:35 Pete, I don't think I would seriously recommend our product for your project unless... unless your product will be powerful enough to drive the platform sale. That used to be the way things worked in the good old days but is less true today. To use our product you'd have to have a product of your own that would command the platform with no questions asked. If that were the case, then we could provide you with a complete, solid business data processing environment. If you're trying to mix in things like Web, there could be ways to do that with outboard web servers but we wouldn't propose our product. Its TCP/IP is not strong enough even though there is a web server for the Wang VS. I'm a little bit fuzzy on how to reach you by private email from here. I'd still like to show you our product... it might get some gears turning. TJ
From: WangVS on 27 Mar 2010 05:58 Pete, Our engineer who looked at Hercules reported that it was not solid enough to use as a basis for our Wang VS emulation. In theory it should have been useful, because the Wang VS was based on IBM 360/370 and has an instruction set almost identical, if a bit of a superset. The Wang VS assembler and linker are just about identical to the IBM versions. The assembler macro language is identical and all the functions in the linker are identical from what I am told by people who know both. The COBOL 85 is standards compiant with some Wang extensions. One extension is a working storage screen statement that defines an interactive screen down to field attributes and source and object variables for fields, and explicit and implicit field placement. Another extension is DISPLAY AND READ, which throws a screen up and gets back fields and function key. A single program can have a multitude of screens and be a complete interactive application. No MAP file nonsense like in CICS. A program can throw up a screen, get back fields and function key, decide what to do, throw up another screen, get back fields and function key, etc. The Wang VS was designed from the ground up to be an interactive system. All interactive systems can do batch by default... run a non- interactive program from a workstation and you're doing batch. But the VS also has Job Queue and Job Classes and Print Queue and Print Classes to facilitate true batch operations. It has Background Task Initiators to reduce the parameters that must be provided when submitting a job to background. Print output is directed to a Print Class, and printers pick up print jobs according to the classes enabled for each printer. Multiples can be defined, so it would be possible, say, to have three printers for invoices, all defined to accept Class I print jobs. It's a robust system. It also has an integrated development environment in which the EDITOR can compile and link programs, and run them, and from which the Interactive Debugger can be invoked. The Debugger has all the features one would expect of a debugger today, even though it was designed in the early 1980s. It displays source code, allows stepping into or over, provides for watching variables, setting program breakpoints, data modification breakpoints, etc. Those who have worked in IBM and Wang systems consistently report that the Wang VS program development environment far and away beats IBM's. TJ On Mar 26, 8:08 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <814v7bFjn...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Pete Dashwood <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > [snip] > > >At this stage, I'm not sure on what I would be offering or where my focus > >should be so it is hard to tell whether Hercules would be OK or not. But at > >least I am now aware of the option (and some possible pitfalls with it) so I > >am much better informed. > > >Again, thanks to both of you. > > You're quite welcome, from at least one of us, and supplied with the usual > admonition of 'pass it along when you can.' > > DD
From: Alistair on 27 Mar 2010 07:21
On Mar 26, 11:44 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > On Mar 26, 4:17 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> In article > >> <f28d7cf0-3f40-46bc-9315-e6b1cc6e0...(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > >> Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On Mar 26, 3:51?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>>> In article > >>> <686a67d1-8659-4d75-a3c4-7558fd3f3...(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > >>>> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> On Mar 26, 2:39?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > > >> [snip] > > > MVS 3.8 was neither VHS nor Beta. > > Ah, those were the days... I have retained my faithful VCR and play > Blackadder, Fawlty Towers, and Harry Enfield tapes occasionally when in > need of some witty light relief :-). Compared to flat screen HD which is > what I'm normally viewing the quality is appalling, but it just goes to show > that content usually trumps form, even though form is important. > > Anyway, getting back to Hercules (wasn't that Steptoe's horse?)... > > I appreciate the contributions from both of you. I understand your > reservations, Alistair, and I also see Doc's point about usual suspects. I > have been out of the mainframe arena for so long now, I'm not sure how > relevant the usual supects still are, but I suspect many people are still > using them under modern versions of the OS. > > At this stage, I'm not sure on what I would be offering or where my focus > should be so it is hard to tell whether Hercules would be OK or not. But at > least I am now aware of the option (and some possible pitfalls with it) so I > am much better informed. > > Again, thanks to both of you. > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If you want mainframe (IBM) with MVS, CICS, DB2 (albeit old versions of each) on a Wintel platform then Hercules would do fine. When I last looked at this there were significant difficulties in implementing IBM- on-Wintel but they were not insurmountable. Just hard work. But it looks as if Hercules has moved on with their implementation method. It used to be that you needed significant sysprog expertise but I think those days are gone. Good luck. |