Re: cobol compiler/gui dev enviroment
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:00:39AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 10/25/07 08:01, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:56:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 10/24/07 18:03, Chris Parker wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the responses. We do now use microfocus, but that is running
> >>> on SCO. I was looking for a Linux version less expensive. Licensing
> >>> for Microfocus on Linux is $500,000 for everything. This is too keep
> >>> from having to go to Windows environment.
> >> $500,000??? There's a lot of "everything" that you're not telling
> >> us about. Dozens of developer seats, thousands of CALs, "gold"
> >> service contract, etc?
> >>
> >> Is it that much more expensive than the SCO or Windows license?
> >
> > Which certainly changes the potential answers to the "why COBOL"
> > question I asked that was never answered by the OP.
>
> Probably because they have a ton of code already written in COBOL.
> Certainly it would cost more than $500K to port (and debug) all that
> code to another language.
Agreed.
>
> Besides, for the problem sets that COBOL is aimed at, it's a damned
> sight better than anything else out (there except maybe PL/I).
Ada seems to do a better job in any domain where its been tried. The
code is more reliable (since the compiler catches so many mistakes that
would otherwise show up at runtime as bugs sometime down the road).
Doug.
Reply to: