Where to download free Fujitsu COBOL compiler
in [Cobol]
|
From: Albert Richheimer on 5 Nov 2009 05:54 Hi You might want to buy a second-hand copy of "Teach Yourself COBOL in 24 Hours", by Thane Hubbell. Something like this, for about $26.39: http://www.amazon.com/Sams-Teach-Yourself-COBOL-Hours/dp/0672314533 There is a CD with a copy of Fujitsu COBOL V3 included. Albert Fim wrote: > For some years ago it was possible to download a free Fujitsu COBOL > compiler, version 3, myabe also 3.5 from adtools.com, but not today. > Does anybody know where to get it? I will try that compiler together > with the product "GUI SreenIO" from Norcom to build a GUI-application > from my Dos-application. > > /Fim W.
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Nov 2009 10:28 Rene_Surop wrote: >> (I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express >> downloads from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how >> long it will be available for... a change of management policy or an >> analyst decides the marketing objective has been achieved and it >> could be pulled overnight...) >> > > Had an idea Pete. It is a long shot though, if in any case a Cobol > programmer would adopt Microsoft C#/VS, had to code on this > platform... BUT instead of completing on running pure C#, the C# code > invokes a Cobol program for the logic/data side. Could it be done? Sure. I do it all the time :-) It is very simple. You simply register the COM component on your system, then add the COBOL COM component as a reference to the C# project in Visual Studio, and VS automatically wraps it with InterOP services (it will run as unmanaged code, so you need to make sure it is thoroughly debugged and not likely to throw bounds errors etc.). You can specify whether you want it shared in the usual way or isolated to this particular application. From then on, IntelliSense recognizes your component and its properties and methods, just as it does with any component. > > It could be silly I guess but most of my codes are in Cobol COM which > can be invoked using C#, and I do not want to change them. It is far from silly; it is very wise. By isolating your functionality into COM components you have guaranteed their future, and saved yourself the trouble of having to re-invent this functionality every time you need it somewhere. You can plug these components into C# very easily, because C# is intended for component based programming (it supports COM and it is easy to write components in C# or to run components written in other languages in C#), and it will allow components in ANY language, that are COM compliant, to be run just as easily as described above. I was interested to note that with components written in Fujitsu NetCOBOL and PowerCOBOL, InterOP services automatically includes the RTS and wraps that as well, to make sure the object can function at run time. (You don't need to separately install the RTS on the client if you specify component isolation). It is all simple, seamless, and very elegant. I'm not sure how you would get on with the Micro Focus runtime licensing if you distribute an application that uses their runtime, as an isolated COM component. Theoretically, they could charge you for every machine it is installed on, even if that machine was already running their RTS... There are no such fees with C# or Fujitsu NetCOBOL so everything is much easier. >Using a > Cobol COM on web application requires mastering HTML/CSS coding... Well, not really... You need knowledge of JavaScript (or VBScript) or ASP so you can instantiate the component (usually during the page "LOAD" event ....) .... var obj = new ActiveXObject("createActiveXcontrol.ProgID"); .... ....but you don't need to be a master of HTML/CSS to embed a component into JavaScript on the page. ASP lets you do it almost anywhere on the page, but the created object only has page scope, a soon as you leave the page, it is gone... <% Set objCool =Server.CreateObject("ProgID") %> Personally, I have kind of grown through each of these (HTML/CSS/JavaScript, ASP) until today I use ASP.NET and write C# code-behinds so (almost) everything runs on the server. I still use AJAX sometimes, (which generates client side JavaScript), but I am looking at Silverlight as a better replacement. Instantiating a COM component in code-behind is just a normal C# statement to get an object instance... .... CoolClassComponent objCool = new CoolClassComponent(); .... The code is JIT compiled as the page is being served; it is all very clever and generally very efficient, although there can be more load on the server, and more return trips, than if client side code is used. However, it is much more secure than using client side code, as the server has far better protection and layered defences than the client machne generally has... > while MS .NET framework could do it in a GUI on web apps. Exactly. You can present your web form and support it with a C# code-behind, using the full facilities of the .NET platform, without being limited by JavaScript or ASP... (The COBOL21 web site is written entirely in ASP.NET and uses C# code-behinds for most of the pages.) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Richard on 5 Nov 2009 14:31 On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > William M. Klein wrote: > > The Fujitsu V3 compiler was NOT for commercial use either. > > > Well, actually, when it was first provided (in 1996 or so) it could > > be used for anything, but for the last decade or so it was explicitly > > posted with "restrictions" saying that it was not for commercial use. > > I received it (for free...) in 1996, as you noted. I developed a commercial > system with it using PowerCOBOL and it is running to this day. > > (This, as Bill noted, did not violate the license at the time.) > > Originally, Fujitsu marketed it into the vacuum created by the withdrawal of > support for Micro Focus Visoc, and I was one of the Micro Focus customers > who changed to Fujitsu at that time. > > I found the product to be excellent and took out maintenance and updated as > new versions became available. > > By the time version 5 arrived, it was a pretty good development environment, > although the IDE has always been "primitive" compared to Eclipse or Visual > Studio. > > It was in version 6 that everything turned to custard. Fujitsu (USA), later > to become Alchemy, decided that piracy was a major concern (I remain > unconvinced to this day; I was talking to a number of Fujitsu customers and > I never met one who was making illegal copies for supply to someone else; > for the most part, their user base was honest COBOL developers for whom not > having a backup put their businesses at risk...) and implemented an insane > system of registration using Casper on a remote server. Although this was > supposed to be helpful for users, inasmuch as the system would allow you 30 > days to download and use a copy of the software if your main implementation > went down, the process involved was really unwieldy. For users outside the > continental USA where time differences matter and you can't just dial an > 0800 number, it was frightening. What if the Casper server was down or > wouldn't recognise your registration? Added to that, the procedure for > transferring a licence to a different machine was just plain silly. (It > required a floppy disk...how long since you saw one of those...? :-)) It is not true that it required a floppy disk, though this was the usual mechanism, it could be done to any medium accessible to both machines. eg a USB drive. > There was unrest amongst the troops and I recall a heated debate in this > forum about the the new licensing. Fujitsu remained unmoved and impervious > and some of us, who actually loved the products and had been fiercely loyal > to them, started thinking about alternatives. (The ironic thng is that, > despite all the complicated rigmarole with Casper Registration, the whole > process is NOT secure, and copies of the software can be easily made by > determined and informed people. Alchemy should really revise this > registration system and make it fair and reasonable for rveryone concerned. > Modern technology and software innovation has overtaken the Neanderthal > mindset that dreamed up Casper.) > > For me, nails started being hammered into the coffin when they revamped > their support and fired guys like Lee Unterreiner (who was one of the most > outstanding support people I have ever seen anywhere), as a cost-cutting > measure. > > The final nails went in when I found myself on a customer site to whom I > had recommended the products, and there were undocumented errors in the > software (PowerCOBOL), incoherent dialogs produced in pidgin English, and > the support was imbecilic. The process of getting support was pathetic and > unnecessarily convoluted, and when you finally got attended to, the person > was incompetent. They finally offered to go back to Japan on it and it would > take three weeks. As the client system needed to be operational in 5 days, > this was unacceptable. I worked day and night with the local team, under > extreme pressure, and we rewrote thousands of lines of PowerCOBOL into > NetCOBOL COM components and managed to achieve the target date, but I NEVER > want to be in that situation again. I felt betrayed and embarrassed because > I had recommended them. As a result, I cancelled my maintenance. (The > actual support was a joke and, by then I think we were on version 6 and the > upgrades weren't implementing anything noticeable... it was like they ran > out of ideas.) > > The interment came when I tried to buy their COBOL for .NET compiler and was > treated with rudeness and shabbiness. The attitude was"You're a small time > COBOL developer so you're not going anywhere. You have no options and we'll > deal with you when it suits us, on terms that suit us." I don't know many > people for whom that would sit well, and for me it just meant an immediate > free download of C# and Visual Studio. > > It also indirectly led to the development of the PRIMA Migration Toolset > which is designed to help others get out from under, just as I did. > > Every cloud has a silver lining ... :-). > > I was hopeful that when Alchemy was announced it would be a new start and > things would be better. > > Instead, I have heard from several sources that maintenance is still > dreadful (OK, hearsay is not evidence...) and now we find that all free and > Academic versions of the compiler have been pulled. (My search was fuitless > just like everybody else's and the Downloads section of the Alchemy site > requires prior registration (perfectly fair and reasonable), but there is no > indication that even if you do this you can get the free V3 compiler. > > To be fair, the current Alchemy focus is on COBOL for .NET and the tools > designed to entice mainframe sites onto .NET, (like the appallingly named, > but apparently very useful, NEO-KICKS :-)) so I guess it is understandable > that they don't want to be supporting or dealing with enquiries on obsolete > versions of the NetCOBOL compiler. Nevertheless, they could have left > version 3 with a disclaimer and let people use it for experimentation or > even just having a look at COBOL. Maybe they figure the Open Source COBOL > movement has that covered... Version 3 was initially for Windows 3.x (I have a CD here) and was later implemented for Windows 95. Apparently it can be made to install and run on XP though it can fail to do so. I can quite understand why Alchemy don't bother with it anymore. > It looks to me like a COBOL company that has no commitment to COBOL (except > maybe .NET COBOL) # NetCOBOL for .NET # NetCOBOL for Linux # NetCOBOL for SPARC Architecture # NetCOBOL for Windows # NetCOBOL for HPUX > If that is the case, then long term, I think the strategy is flawed. > > Once people move to a platform like .NET (no matter which vehicle they > arrive in), they very soon start to realise the advantages of this approach. > Before too long it becomes apparent that COBOL and COBOL approaches are not > the best way to do things in this environment (even though you CAN use it), > and they simply move to more facile .NET languages. > > It is also important to remember that neither Fujitsu nor Alchemy are > OBLIGED to offer a free compiler. Fujitsu did it to try and penetrate a > market that was dominated by Micro Focus. There was never any guarantee that > they would CONTINUE doing it. > > Micro Focus offer a free version because they are a company committed to > COBOL and they realise that by making access to COBOL easy, it is good for > the long term future of their business. I admire them, but I don't think > that is where the future is. > > I guess time will tell... In the meantime there is a lesson here for all of > us: If a vendor offers something free it is probably worth getting hold of > it. Certainly, it is unlikely to leave you any worse off... Don't just > assume it will always be there... > > (I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express downloads > from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how long it will be > available for... a change of management policy or an analyst decides the > marketing objective has been achieved and it could be pulled overnight...) > Exactly. Free Internet Explorer was to drive Netscape out of business, Free MSN (the original '95) was to kill the internet. Free C# was to kill Java. Bung (or something) is to kill Google. Fortunately Microsoft have been failing at many things because when their market share is high the free stuff stops and they rake in the loot. > > Having said that, I couldn't find it anymore on the web either. I am > > watching this thread to see if anyone can still find it. > > I located a number of links to it but none of them worked. Alchemy is not > showing it or ANY free download that I could find... > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Richard on 5 Nov 2009 14:41 On Nov 4, 1:49 am, Fim <fim.wastb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > For some years ago it was possible to download a free Fujitsu COBOL > compiler, version 3, myabe also 3.5 from adtools.com, but not today. > Does anybody know where to get it? I will try that compiler together > with the product "GUI SreenIO" from Norcom to build a GUI-application > from my Dos-application. > > /Fim W. You may be better to consider OpenCOBOL.
From: Pete Dashwood on 5 Nov 2009 19:06
Richard wrote: > On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> William M. Klein wrote: >>> The Fujitsu V3 compiler was NOT for commercial use either. >> >>> Well, actually, when it was first provided (in 1996 or so) it could >>> be used for anything, but for the last decade or so it was >>> explicitly posted with "restrictions" saying that it was not for >>> commercial use. >> >> I received it (for free...) in 1996, as you noted. I developed a >> commercial system with it using PowerCOBOL and it is running to this >> day. >> >> (This, as Bill noted, did not violate the license at the time.) >> >> Originally, Fujitsu marketed it into the vacuum created by the >> withdrawal of support for Micro Focus Visoc, and I was one of the >> Micro Focus customers who changed to Fujitsu at that time. >> >> I found the product to be excellent and took out maintenance and >> updated as new versions became available. >> >> By the time version 5 arrived, it was a pretty good development >> environment, although the IDE has always been "primitive" compared >> to Eclipse or Visual Studio. >> >> It was in version 6 that everything turned to custard. Fujitsu >> (USA), later to become Alchemy, decided that piracy was a major >> concern (I remain unconvinced to this day; I was talking to a number >> of Fujitsu customers and I never met one who was making illegal >> copies for supply to someone else; for the most part, their user >> base was honest COBOL developers for whom not having a backup put >> their businesses at risk...) and implemented an insane system of >> registration using Casper on a remote server. Although this was >> supposed to be helpful for users, inasmuch as the system would allow >> you 30 days to download and use a copy of the software if your main >> implementation went down, the process involved was really unwieldy. >> For users outside the continental USA where time differences matter >> and you can't just dial an 0800 number, it was frightening. What if >> the Casper server was down or wouldn't recognise your registration? >> Added to that, the procedure for transferring a licence to a >> different machine was just plain silly. (It required a floppy >> disk...how long since you saw one of those...? :-)) > > > It is not true that it required a floppy disk, though this was the > usual mechanism, it could be done to any medium accessible to both > machines. eg a USB drive. The documentation which arrived as printed paper notes with version 6, stated that a floppy disk should be used. There was no mention of any other device. I never tried it with a USB drive but I'll take your word for it. > > >> There was unrest amongst the troops and I recall a heated debate in >> this forum about the the new licensing. Fujitsu remained unmoved and >> impervious and some of us, who actually loved the products and had >> been fiercely loyal to them, started thinking about alternatives. >> (The ironic thng is that, despite all the complicated rigmarole with >> Casper Registration, the whole process is NOT secure, and copies of >> the software can be easily made by determined and informed people. >> Alchemy should really revise this registration system and make it >> fair and reasonable for rveryone concerned. Modern technology and >> software innovation has overtaken the Neanderthal mindset that >> dreamed up Casper.) >> >> For me, nails started being hammered into the coffin when they >> revamped their support and fired guys like Lee Unterreiner (who was >> one of the most outstanding support people I have ever seen >> anywhere), as a cost-cutting measure. >> >> The final nails went in when I found myself on a customer site to >> whom I had recommended the products, and there were undocumented >> errors in the software (PowerCOBOL), incoherent dialogs produced in >> pidgin English, and the support was imbecilic. The process of >> getting support was pathetic and unnecessarily convoluted, and when >> you finally got attended to, the person was incompetent. They >> finally offered to go back to Japan on it and it would take three >> weeks. As the client system needed to be operational in 5 days, this >> was unacceptable. I worked day and night with the local team, under >> extreme pressure, and we rewrote thousands of lines of PowerCOBOL >> into NetCOBOL COM components and managed to achieve the target date, >> but I NEVER want to be in that situation again. I felt betrayed and >> embarrassed because I had recommended them. As a result, I cancelled >> my maintenance. (The actual support was a joke and, by then I think >> we were on version 6 and the upgrades weren't implementing anything >> noticeable... it was like they ran out of ideas.) >> >> The interment came when I tried to buy their COBOL for .NET compiler >> and was treated with rudeness and shabbiness. The attitude >> was"You're a small time COBOL developer so you're not going >> anywhere. You have no options and we'll deal with you when it suits >> us, on terms that suit us." I don't know many people for whom that >> would sit well, and for me it just meant an immediate free download >> of C# and Visual Studio. >> >> It also indirectly led to the development of the PRIMA Migration >> Toolset which is designed to help others get out from under, just as >> I did. >> >> Every cloud has a silver lining ... :-). >> >> I was hopeful that when Alchemy was announced it would be a new >> start and things would be better. >> >> Instead, I have heard from several sources that maintenance is still >> dreadful (OK, hearsay is not evidence...) and now we find that all >> free and Academic versions of the compiler have been pulled. (My >> search was fuitless just like everybody else's and the Downloads >> section of the Alchemy site requires prior registration (perfectly >> fair and reasonable), but there is no indication that even if you do >> this you can get the free V3 compiler. >> >> To be fair, the current Alchemy focus is on COBOL for .NET and the >> tools designed to entice mainframe sites onto .NET, (like the >> appallingly named, but apparently very useful, NEO-KICKS :-)) so I >> guess it is understandable that they don't want to be supporting or >> dealing with enquiries on obsolete versions of the NetCOBOL >> compiler. Nevertheless, they could have left version 3 with a >> disclaimer and let people use it for experimentation or even just >> having a look at COBOL. Maybe they figure the Open Source COBOL >> movement has that covered... > > Version 3 was initially for Windows 3.x (I have a CD here) and was > later implemented for Windows 95. Apparently it can be made to install > and run on XP though it can fail to do so. > > I can quite understand why Alchemy don't bother with it anymore. > > >> It looks to me like a COBOL company that has no commitment to COBOL >> (except maybe .NET COBOL) > This is the "flagship" product and most of the other tools require you to buy it. > # NetCOBOL for .NET These are the "second class citizens" and poor relations for which you will pay annual maintenance and receive very little. It isn't like they are implementing the 2002 COBOL standard. Since version 6 most of the "new releases" have been about better documentation, and fixes to obscure bugs you would be unlikely to encounter anyway. There hasn't been innovation of new features, as far as I can tell., however, I haven't had a lot to do with later releases and am going on what others tell me. > # NetCOBOL for Linux > # NetCOBOL for SPARC Architecture > # NetCOBOL for Windows > # NetCOBOL for HPUX My own experience is with the Windows product and it has always been excellent. But I don't think there is a committment to update any of these. That is what prompted my comment. (If I'm wrong about this and they are actually working to implement more of the 2002 standard, I unreservedly apologise to Alchemy.) > >> If that is the case, then long term, I think the strategy is flawed. >> >> Once people move to a platform like .NET (no matter which vehicle >> they arrive in), they very soon start to realise the advantages of >> this approach. Before too long it becomes apparent that COBOL and >> COBOL approaches are not the best way to do things in this >> environment (even though you CAN use it), and they simply move to >> more facile .NET languages. >> >> It is also important to remember that neither Fujitsu nor Alchemy are >> OBLIGED to offer a free compiler. Fujitsu did it to try and >> penetrate a market that was dominated by Micro Focus. There was >> never any guarantee that they would CONTINUE doing it. >> >> Micro Focus offer a free version because they are a company >> committed to COBOL and they realise that by making access to COBOL >> easy, it is good for the long term future of their business. I >> admire them, but I don't think that is where the future is. >> >> I guess time will tell... In the meantime there is a lesson here for >> all of us: If a vendor offers something free it is probably worth >> getting hold of it. Certainly, it is unlikely to leave you any worse >> off... Don't just assume it will always be there... >> >> (I see this in the same way as the free C#/VB.Net/C++/VS express >> downloads from Microsoft... get it while you can; you don't know how >> long it will be available for... a change of management policy or an >> analyst decides the marketing objective has been achieved and it >> could be pulled overnight...) >> > > Exactly. Free Internet Explorer was to drive Netscape out of business, > Free MSN (the original '95) was to kill the internet. Free C# was to > kill Java. Bung (or something) is to kill Google. I won't comment on the other points, but free C# was never designed to "kill Java" (although that was probably a hoped for side effect...). And there is no past tense; C# is STILL free and has been for 7 years. I believe the idea was to get people quickly onto .NET and it has largely succeeded in doing that. So we could expect, having largely achieved the market objective, they would pull it. So far, they haven't. > > Fortunately Microsoft have been failing at many things because when > their market share is high the free stuff stops and they rake in the > loot. I'm having a little difficulty with "raking in the loot" and "failure"... perhaps we have different definitions of "success" :-) So their market share for Visual Studio and C# isn't high? I did some searches... In the last 2 years, growth of C# use has been phenomenal and now exceeds both Java and VB. However, there is no clear picture I could find, and different sources have different views. The only conclusion I could make was that C# and PHP are growing strongly, while Java seems to be in decline. Some examples... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9884500-16.html http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html (Tiobe is interesting... it shows COBOL as 23 in the language list, and Java as supreme ruler, but on a declining trend.) Pete -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |