Re: cobol compiler/gui dev enviroment
Hello,
On 24-10-2007, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/23/07 22:11, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 08:34:15PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 10/23/07 20:08, David Fox wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/07, Chris Parker <chris_parker@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know of a good cobol compiler and gui development
>>>>> enviroment? I have seen open-cobol as a compiler, but was wondering if
>>>>> anyone has any other recommendations?
>>>>
>>>> I've not yet heard of an open cobol, seems that it might be
>>>> interesting. Last I checked, there was
>>>> a tiny cobol compiler that I got somewhere on the net but don't have
>>>> it anymore and can't remember where I got it.
>>> Correct. COBOL* is so complicated a language, and so anti-geeky,
>>> that no one has really had an itch to create a full COBOL
>>> environment. You'll have to pony up the coin for a commercial compiler.
>>>
>>> * And it's soulmate PL/I.
>>
>> I'll bite: why do you need COBOL? You've go C, Fortran, and Ada in
>
> Because apps written in COBOL are highly portable across platforms.
>
This is false.
As any other programming language COBOL is as portable as the programmer
make it (same thing apply for Java/C/Python/OCaml/Perl...)
FYI, there is a big difference between GCOS 8/GCOS 7/IBM MVS cobol
compiler (and you will find another set of differences with Micro Focus,
Fujitsu...)
If this argument is the main to choose COBOL rather than C, i really
think you should reconsider your position.
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
ps: i am working for a company that converts program sources between
different dialects of COBOL (and especially from MVS/GCOS to UNIX). My work is
to deal with the non-portability of COBOL...
Reply to: