HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320))
Subject: Re: cobol
Organization: Micro Focus Ltd., Newbury, UK
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:04:13 GMT


In article <9302421.22722@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
> jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320)) writes:
> 
> >In fact, the Micro Focus COBOL compiler (and many of the other tools) *are*
> >written in COBOL.  (Yes, I was gob-smacked when I found out as well :-). I
> >do believe you'd have to be a masochist to want to do it, but then again,
> >the compiler ports to just about any system first time, which is more than
> >can be said for the C runtime.
> 
> The difference is due to the nature of the tasks, not the languages used
> to implement them. It would be easy enough to write a completely portable
> compiler in C.

I agree, in principle.  The ease and speed with which characters and small
numbers can be manipulated in C are far greater than that of COBOL, thus
lexical and syntactic analysis will be faster.  Pointers are another area
where C benefits greatly -- I really wouldn't want to try to implement a
parse tree in COBOL.

However, my experience on 40+ different machines running different flavours
of UNIX and different C compilers makes me skeptical about how easy it is
to write truly portable C.  Of course, ANSI, POSIX et al will probably go
a long way towards sorting this out.

In comparison, the COBOL compiler, which is delivered to my own group in
interpreted code (we don't even get to see the source unless we ask for it)
runs first time on just about any platform.

> Is the Micro Focus COBOL compiler actually written and compiled in Micro
> Focus COBOL?

Yes it is.  However, the interpreted code is not what is delivered as the
final product -- we use a code generator (which is also written in COBOL,
and part of the final product) to turn the interpreted code into something
which is very similar to a linkable object file (in fact, the generator can
produce these too).  These then make calls to the runtime interpreter to
provide support for things which are not easy or worthwhile doing in the
actual object (screen and file io, for instance).

> That would make it fairly inefficient. (I'm presuming from
> what you said above that Micro Focus uses a runtime interpreter.)

I have no idea of how this compares to C in terms of efficiency, but I
believe that the greatest loss is in providing a mechanism for C and COBOL
to be able to understand each other's datatypes.

> -- 
> Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
> This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
> you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
> .signature file!
-- 
 "Yield to temptation --             |
  it may not pass your way again"    |     jfid@mfltd.co.uk
                                     |
        - Lazarus Long               |              James Fidell
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320))
Subject: Re: comp-3 and ascii data representation
Organization: Micro Focus Ltd., Newbury, UK
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:06:41 GMT


In article <1k2hkgINNcvi@shelley.u.washington.edu>, lambert@stein.u.washington.edu (D. Lambert) writes:
> Is there a good source of information on how the numerical data 
> is stored in memory?
> 
> Is there a program which would analyzed the file in a systematic 
> way to display the numeric contents correctly, without the need 
> for the file pic information?
> 
> D. M. Lambert
> 

I think this depends on what COBOL you are using, and what you mean by
the word "file" -- a file created by a COBOL program on disk ?  a COBOL
executable ?

James.
-- 
 "Yield to temptation --             |
  it may not pass your way again"    |     jfid@mfltd.co.uk
                                     |
        - Lazarus Long               |              James Fidell
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Re; Why COBOL for the 90's
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 09:37:01 CST
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

Don Nelson <nelson_don@comm.tandem.com> writes:

| Object-oriented COBOL is being developed by a sub-committee of ANSI 
| X3J4 (the COBOL Committee).  They are defining syntax and semantics to 
| make COBOL work somewhat in the fashion of other object-oriented 
| languages.

| Some vendors already say they have some object-oriented features.  
| However, nobody has what the OO COBOL group is defining.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR.... (sorry..)

The ANSI X3J11 (?) Forth Committee has come under fire for defining
a Forth standard which no one uses.  Now you tell me there is an
entire (sub-)committee dedicated to CREATING a language?  Geez....


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
Xref: sparky alt.cobol:701 biz.jobs.offered:639
From: mcginnis@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cobol,biz.jobs.offered
Subject: Looking for COBOL on AS400 Programmer
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:25:40 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I have a friend looking for somebody with 3 years of COBOL experience
on AS400.  I think this would be for the Kansas City area.

If you're interested, send me your phone number and address and
I'll pass them along to Ron.


Michael McGinnis                Internet: mcginnis@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Computer Center                   Bitnet: mcginnis@ukanvax
University of Kansas               Voice: (913)864-0413
Lawrence, KS  66045                  FAX: (913)864-0485

Rust never sleeps.
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Cobol
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 12:35:33 CST
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

SINARRWB@admin.uh.edu (BELL, ROBERT W.) writes:

| I just tire of the C simpletons that jump on
| this list thinking they need to come here to convert and convince us all
| that Cobol is junk.   That is just plain ignorance, and or inexperience
| with one or the other or both...  Both have their place, and purpose.

Amen to that!  And not just on this list....

I'm a language NUT, and while I'd rather program in lots of languages
other than COBOL, I'm happy programming in any language... can't get
enough of them!  Each has their place, and each has their adherents.
Just seems like some have more vocal detractors than others (COBOL
and FORTH come to mind...)

I'm happy just hanging out here and seeing what neat stuff is happening
to COBOL in the nineties...


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: cobol
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:38:13 GMT

jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320)) writes:

>In fact, the Micro Focus COBOL compiler (and many of the other tools) *are*
>written in COBOL.  (Yes, I was gob-smacked when I found out as well :-). I
>do believe you'd have to be a masochist to want to do it, but then again,
>the compiler ports to just about any system first time, which is more than
>can be said for the C runtime.

The difference is due to the nature of the tasks, not the languages used
to implement them. It would be easy enough to write a completely portable
compiler in C.

Is the Micro Focus COBOL compiler actually written and compiled in Micro
Focus COBOL? That would make it fairly inefficient. (I'm presuming from
what you said above that Micro Focus uses a runtime interpreter.)

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: cobol
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:44:19 GMT

Richard_Plinston@kcbbs.gen.nz (Richard Plinston) writes:

>    Most Cobol systems are not CPU limited, but are disk I/O limited
>    so the difference between the performance of an 'intermediate' (.INT)
>    system and a generated (.GNT) or object (.OBJ -> .EXE) is usually
>    not significant (but would be for a compiler).

This is oft-quoted wisdom, but I'm not sure of its veracity.
In the absence of decent profiling tools it is difficult to accurately
determine. I did some testing of our in-house report writer, written
in ACU-COBOL, for tasks that should have been completely disk limited, but
found that it was in fact about 80 to 90% CPU limited.

I saw a set of benchmarks for file I/O in a (I think) a Byte magazine
which showed REALIA cobol as way out in front, about seven times faster
than ACU. ACU is an interpreted system, and REALIA is a real compiler.
Does this really just mean that runtime library file system is seven times
worse than the REALIA one (hard to believe), or is it an indication that
you pay an efficient penalty for interpreted systems, even in code that
seems like it should be completely limited by file I/O?

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: Don Nelson <nelson_don@comm.tandem.com>
Subject: Re: OOCTG
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78C3C8FFB02AC3B@59.172.252.130.in-addr.arpa>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:20:15 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:06:33 GMT

In article <1ju2v6INN19a@fbi-news.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE> Oliver
Schlageter, schlaget@udo.informatik.uni-dortmund.de writes:
>Hi there!
>
>Does anybody know about the actual status of the work by 
>the "Object Oriented Cobol Task Group" (OOCTG)?  Do they
>have published some first documents? Is there something
>like a standard for oo-Cobol? Is it even possible to find
>any commercial products implementing the results of OOCTG?
>
>If not, does anybody have an idea about when some results
>are to be expected, and where they may be retrieved?

The OOCTG, now ANSI X3J4.1, is working on their first "real" paper.  They
are 
writing a technical report that will be available some time later this
year.  
There is no standard and will not be for several years.  Some vendors
claim 
they have oo stuff, but nothing available now conforms to OOCTG's ideas 
because the ideas are not yet concrete enough.  Also, most of us involved
in this work hope that nothing comes out until there is a final
specification.

Don Nelson
COBOL Development, Tandem Computers, Inc 
nelson_don@comm.tandem.com
No clever quotes here
From: z_harbergt@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Student seeking alternative
Date: 23 Jan 93 10:54:45 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University


> [...] I would really like to purchase COBOL for my PC and work on
> assignments at home.  However, I've been told by several sources that PC
> versions compatible with KSU's mainframe COBOL are severely out of my price
> range (my range is $150 - $300). Is this true? If so, I would really
> appreciate any recommendations.

  You've touched on a problem that many have had; most find COBOL650 and
 cry profusely. IMHO, here are your alternatives:

 1) Micro Focus still sells a "Personal COBOL" (Programmer's Connection
    $122) which is an interpreter based on the 74 standard.  If your
    school has an 85 compiler, it's not worth it.  I used this as a
    syntax checker in an intro course that insisted we use 74 (had to
    set a qualifer with VAX COBOL - teacher did not know 85!).

 2) Microsoft ran a student offer this Fall for the full-blown COBOL
    package at $125.  I'm not sure if the program is still in effect,
    but you can call them at 1-800-992-3675 and ask.  Several people I
    know took this offer and were pleased, but have a big hard drive!

 3) Contact all the compiler-writing companies directly and ask.  I had
    a friend that called Acucobol a year ago and got a 30-day evaluation
    copy of their 85 compiler for free.  It was regulated by the pc time
    stamp so he kept his clock set on a legal date and used the compiler
    for a semester course.  (I'm not recommending this action but to his
    credit, at the end of the course, he destroyed the diskettes). 

 I've never used a full-blown pc compiler like Microsoft's but from my
 experience with the Personal COBOL and my friend's usage of Acucobol 85,
 the major problem with home <-> mainframe interaction was I/O.  We could
 never obtain the true power of COBOL I/O (file structures) on the PC that
 would allow us to do a direct port of our home work to the school's 
 computer (VAX 6410).  Our home COBOL became a fancy syntax checker that,
 while valuable, was not worth the money.

 Hope this helps,

 Greg Harber
 g_cscg4@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320))
Subject: Re: cobol
Organization: Micro Focus Ltd., Newbury, UK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:35:10 GMT


In article <1jm43fINN8rv@mirror.digex.com>, tdarcos@digex.digex.com (Paul Robinson) writes:
> alan.popow@canrem.com ("alan popow") writes:
> : RE: Message 760 entered on Jan 12,93 by SINARRWB to ALL
> : ===========================================================================
> : 
> : In general I agree with the conclusions. Use them for their strengths, but
> : I do have to wonder about the statement above. Never? Would you seriously
> : consider writing an o/s in COBOL? How about a mouse, video, or any other
> : kind of external driver?
> 
> Someone once suggested the idea of writing a Compiler in COBOL, maybe even
> the COBOL compiler itself!  On the other hand, he may have been suggesting
> that as the idea of punishment.
> 

In fact, the Micro Focus COBOL compiler (and many of the other tools) *are*
written in COBOL.  (Yes, I was gob-smacked when I found out as well :-). I
do believe you'd have to be a masochist to want to do it, but then again,
the compiler ports to just about any system first time, which is more than
can be said for the C runtime.

James.
-- 
 "Yield to temptation --             |
  it may not pass your way again"    |     jfid@mfltd.co.uk
                                     |
        - Lazarus Long               |              James Fidell
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: cobol
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:21:31 GMT

jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320)) writes:

>Pointers are another area
>where C benefits greatly -- I really wouldn't want to try to implement a
>parse tree in COBOL.

Well now that you mention it I *have* done that :-), though only for a
quite simple grammar.
You can use array indices instead of pointers without *too* much difficulty.
The real gripe I have is with the lack of dynamic allocation.

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320))
Subject: Re: comp-3 and ascii data representation
Organization: Micro Focus Ltd., Newbury, UK
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:34:24 GMT


In article <1k4v1fINN3pp@shelley.u.washington.edu>, lambert@stein.u.washington.edu (D. Lambert) writes:
> 
> If implementaions of Cobol use different file storage formats
> then wouldn't that make data files not portable?

Yes.

> Would each Data file from say an IBM implementation have to be converted
> to ascii representation to be read by a cobol program with the same
> file defintions on a DG implementation?

Probably.

> I thought that the data was stored the same way. Does the runtime
> system have anything to do with conversion? I know that the runtile
> MLS lock server prevents access to users during conficts with other
> users or security definitions. This prevents corrupting data through
> simultaneous write access to the file.

Different COBOL vendors write files in different ways -- there is no
guarantee that a file written by, say, IBM, COBOL will be readable using
the same program compiled under, say, DG COBOL.

IMHO, historically it has been the intention of many language vendors to
write ``closed'' systems which are incompatible with others, in order to
tie buyers into their system.

I believe, though I would not state categorically, that ANSI specify that
certain data-types are stored in particular ways in memory (can anyone
confirm or refute this ?), but that doesn't really get you anywhere.

> D.M Lambert
> University of WAshington
> 

James.
-- 
 "Yield to temptation --             |
  it may not pass your way again"    |     jfid@mfltd.co.uk
                                     |
        - Lazarus Long               |              James Fidell
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: ladybug@hydra.unm.edu (Carol E. Newby)
Newsgroups: alt.sewing
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR DISCOUNT OR MAIL ORDER SOURCES FOR SEWING MACHINES
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:56:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.unm.edu

In article <1k3nqkINNt99@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.MMX@forsythe.stanford.edu (Marilee Marshall) writes:
>>Sewin in Vermont's prices were 600+ dollars less on the 1230 model.  In fact,
>>that is why I went to the 1530 - I could get more machine for a little bit
>>more than I was originally willing to pay.
>>
>>Mary Lou
>>
>Was this vendor mail order or a regular store?  If mail order would
>you please post the addreess or phone number?   I'm checking prices
>for a Juki serger.
>
Marilee,
Sewin' in Vermont is a mail order vendor and their number is (800)451-5124, 
you may also want to check with SEW-KNIT DISTRIBUTORS in Baton Rouge, their
number is (800)923-5648
Happy Hunting,
Carol  


-- 
internet: ladybug@hydra.unm.edu              BITNET: ladybug@unmb

         "I know you think you understand what you think I said,
             but I'm not sure what you heard is what I meant" Anon.
From: fearnley@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Fearnley Anne)
Newsgroups: alt.sewing
Subject: Re: Preparing wool
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:50:38 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

Holly.Doyne@f172.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Holly Doyne) writes:

>Boiled wool, as in most of the expensive jackets - was originally a knit fabric
>not woven. (more flexibility after fulling)

This reminds me of the amazing mittens my mother used to make (I still have a
pair).  The idea is to knit then twice as big and then wash and dry them in the 
machine until they are more or less the right size.  These mittens are amazing
very warm, wind proof, virtually waterproof (though if they get waterlogged they
will freeze and become unbendable, though the hands inside never seem to get 
cold, just pruned).  
--
Anne Fearnley                                     Dept de math. et de stat.
fearnley@ere.umontreal.ca                         Universite de Montreal
                                                  Montreal, QC
From: suzy@skat.usc.edu (Susan A. Musil)
Newsgroups: alt.sewing
Subject: Medieval Miscellanea
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:19:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu

Much thanks to the folks who responded to my request for Rennaisance
Men's Patterns.  Someone suggested I contact Medievall Miscellanea
about ready-made patterns.  They are supposedly listed in the
alt.sewing FAQ.  Could some kind soul please e-mail me a copy of this?

Again thanks to USC for the connectivity, and also to those kinds
folks who've responded to my plea.

I remain:
	musil@bailey.ateng.az.honeywell.com

susan,
in the wilds of Cactus-villeN
Newsgroups: alt.sewing
From: nancy@world.std.com (Nancy C Reynolds)
Subject: Re: Best Basic Sewing Book?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:04:12 GMT

I like Singer's Sewing Step by Step for a good introductory book.  It may
not go in as great a depth as other books, but the photographs really help
explain the text.  Also, even after you become accomplished with
dressmaking, the book is still useful as an introduction to tailoring and
home sewing.  I would recommend that anyone who is considering buying an
introductory book first look in the library and try out the book for free
to find out what best suits her or him.  What may be right for one of us
won't be the best for someone else.

--Nancy Reynolds
From: HF.MMX@forsythe.stanford.edu (Marilee Marshall)
Newsgroups: alt.sewing
Subject: Re:  comforters
Date: 21 Jan 1993 08:17:16 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

For Christmas I made a quilted a duvet cover for my daughter's down
comforter.  It was elaborately pieced and turned out quite lovely.
The trouble with this kind of duvet is it shouldn't be washed as
often as a topsheet, and my daughter doesn't use a topsheet.
Answer?  I put buttons on the sheetside top and sides, then bought a
sheet and made button holes that corresponded with the duvet's
buttons.  Voila, now she can wash the sheet, and protect the duvet.

marilee
Newsgroups: alt.sewing
From: mathias@ira.uka.de (Adolf Mathias c/o HH)
Subject: Re: Saddlebags for bikes
Reply-To: mathias@ira.uka.de
Organization: Univ. Karlsruhe
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:53:19 GMT

I constructed mine on my own. The fabric is Trevira (a german brand name for
polyester) covered with PVC, a very stiff and lasting material used for truck 
covers etc. 

The form is simply a trapezoid that aproximately follows a tangent to the 
circle the feet are describing when pedalling and is cut off near the bike's
rear end. The bags extend very deep providing a low center of gravity.

The thing I had problems with are the fixings. Up to now, there are only
two nylon tapes attached on each side, and I have to tie the bags to the bike 
each time I use them. A pressure button solution wasn't appropriate. There
are replacement hooks available for Cannondale saddlebags, but they're
a bit (!) too expensive (~ $8 each! OK, OK, I agree, that isn't very much;
but the rest of the material didn't cost me anything, so it is rather a matter
of sport)

Does anyone know about a good solution for that? Any cheap, durable hooks
or something similar? Let me know.

Thanks in advance,       Dolfi


Newsgroups: alt.sewing
From: sallyh@StarConn.com (Sally Holmes)
Subject: Re: LOOKING FOR DISCOUNT OR MAIL ORDER SOURCES FOR SEWING MACHINES
Organization: Starnet-Public Access UNIX--Los Altos, CA  415-949-3133
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:13:01 GMT

mlfrey@bbn.com (Mary Lou Frey) writes:

>I bought a Bernina 1530 from Sewin' in Vermont at the end of Nov' 92.  
>Sewin in Vermont's prices were 600+ dollars less on the 1230 model.  

Sewing machine prices are like car prices: negotiable. If there's a
dealer near you who you like, and who offers classes and clubs and
after-sales service, it's well worth trying to haggle. I got $900 off my
Viking #1! (but my husband and I are very good at haggling :-))

Sally

Newsgroups: alt.sewing