Traditional COBOL environment
in [Cobol]
|
From: WangVS on 26 Mar 2010 04:42 Pete, I'm used to it. But the fact is that companies with user populations as large as 500 are running the New VS, and they're running their entire companies on it. What we need, though, is to get beyond upgrading the folks who already have a Wang VS. We need to find folks who are in need of a solid, stable data processing environment that includes the entire mainframe OS, the language tools, the robust file system, clustering, etc. 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. I could show the product to you via Webex conferencing if you're interested to see it. Really. Thomas Junker Pete Dashwood wrote: > I'm sorry about the above :-) > > You waved a red rag when you said "serious" and COBOL 74 in the same > sentence... > > Seriously, I wish you success with your venture. > > Pete. > > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: WangVS on 26 Mar 2010 04:56 On Feb 5, 11:44 pm, "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletet...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > It's a shame about the company I knew as Wang Laboratories. Like so many > others, including your COBOL 'BRUNCH' they have bitten the dust. > > ... > > So far as COBOL is concerned, when you looked at some of the early texts > about COBOL, their manuals started, "It is assumed the developer is > already familiar with COBOL....". Uh, no. The Wang VS COBOL manuals were meticulously precise presentations of the COBOL standards. > ... > > Primarily Wang were into two things, BASIC and their dedicated W/P > desktop units Uh, no. You are decades out of date on that. Just about the time you said you were involved, late 1970s, Wang introduced the VS mainframe, which grew to be their main product line in the 1980s. Mainframe. As in multiple compiler languages, hundreds or thousands of users, up to hundreds of disk drives, printers, workstations, telecomm lines, etc. Large scale. Not as large as IBM mainframes, but large. Large enough to make PCs look like bad jokes. Also, Wang COBOL was not limited to batch. Wang designed the VS OS to be interactive, and their COBOL extensions fully supported interactive processing. Throw up a screen, get fields and function key back, process it, throw up another screen, etc. All in one program. A screen statement for a complex screen could run to hundreds of lines, specifying field locations, field attributes, and to and from variables for each field along with nonmodifiable prompt text. This also meant that the compiler caught problems in screen statements and code at compile time, not at run time as was the case with CICS in the IBM world. > ... > > Fuzzy memory - but I'm talking approx 1977/1979. A marketing thing for > Wang third-party software folks was being held in Seattle, Wa. I went, That would have been for an earlier product line like the Wang 2200, which was a BASIC system, or OIS, which was a WP system. Thomas Junker
From: Anonymous on 26 Mar 2010 07:49 In article <4438cbb8-e9aa-44eb-b9ed-089637b5470d(a)35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, WangVS <tjunker(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
From: Pete Dashwood on 26 Mar 2010 09:40 WangVS wrote: > Pete, I'm used to it. OK, I'm sorry I added to your burden... :-) I guess it is hard for some people (well, definitely for me...) to imagine someone seriously touting a COBOL 74 platform in 2010. But you're starting to get to me... I read your mail several times and it may not be as crazy as it seems. No more flippancy... some serious questions/observations... > But the fact is that companies with user > populations as large as 500 are running the New VS, and > they're running their entire companies on it. And are they developing in COBOL 74 with it? Does the COBOL 85 implementation include OO? > > What we need, though, is to get beyond upgrading the folks > who already have a Wang VS. We need to find folks who > are in need of a solid, stable data processing environment > that includes the entire mainframe OS, the language tools, > the robust file system, clustering, etc. By "mainframe" in the above, do you mean "IBM mainframe"? Or do you consider the Wang to be a "mainframe"? 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... :-)) If your system comes in at a reasonable server price, rather than an outrageous mainframe price, it might be an option. > 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. > That sounds great but the sticker is "Wang VS mainframe". How compatible is it with IBM? I'm completely unfamiliar with the range, the architecture, and the software. Now, I know for example that a "Fujitsu mainframe" is over 95% compatible with IBM and they can run the same object code. But these machines cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be network servers... > I could show the product to you via Webex conferencing if > you're interested to see it. Really. I'm not disinterested, but I am very busy. If you can drop me some ballpark figures by private email, I'll consider it further (or not... depends on the figures :-)) Good luck with it anyway. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 26 Mar 2010 10:39
In article <813rpqFno8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(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 |