HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Student seeking alternative
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:12:16 -0500

Hello Greg!

 GW> I'm a commuter (hour and twenty minutes one-way) and am presently taking
 GW> my first programming class. Because of this lengthy drive I would really
 GW> like to purchase COBOL for my PC and work on assignments at home.
 GW> However, I've been told by several sources that PC versions compatible
 GW> with KSU's mainframe COBOL are severely out of my price range (my range is
 GW> $150 - $300). Is this true? If so, I would really appreciate
 GW> any recommendations.

I'm afraid that's basically right.  There are some exceptions and altenatives,
though.  First, there's a shareware COBOL compile for MS-DOS called COBOL650.
You can download it from my board if you like.  There's also a later version
called COBOL700, but I find it more irritating; it's crippled, I believe.  The
compiler does have problems.  It's "old" COBOL, rather than COBOL 85, and
getting it to work is a bit of a chore (it *really* wants to run off your floppy
drive, although it can be faked out).  I believe there's also an inexpensive
commercial COBOL for MS-DOS; I don't know what the issues surrounding it are, or
what it's called.

A possibly better alternative is to find out about student deals on one of the
premium COBOL compilers.  I work for Computer Associates, which markets Realia.
I don't work with that end of the company, and don't know all that much about
the product, but I believe it has a good reputation; many companies offer their
compilers to student at discount rates (I don't know if CA does or not).

Bruce
From: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Look for a compiler
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:17:06 GMT
Reply-To: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey)
Organization: CCS Enterprises, Inc.

In article <1993Jan26.111955.1102@unine.ch> Fabien.Loeffel@seco.unine.ch writes:
>I am looking for a cobol compiler.
>Could someone answer me where I can find one ?
>If you could give me the name of a good compiler and price or
>the name of an anonymous ftp site contening a (bad,good or excellent)
>compiler, it will be very appreciated.
>P.S: It is a compiler for msdos system (and one of my friend is searching
>     one for c64 system.)
>Fabien.Loeffel@seco.unine.ch

On our BBS we have a cobol compiler available.
It is in a directory for Cobol.
No charge to access the BBS other than your own phone call.
Over 10,000 program amounting to over 740mb compressed (ZIP).

Accepts 1200,2400,9600,14,400 v.32bis 24hrs/days
(410) 476-5098   Easton Maryland

-- 
>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: GWELKER@bsa3.kent.edu (Greg Welker)
Subject: Student seeking alternative
Organization: Kent State University, School of Business Administration
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:02:37 GMT

I'm a commuter (hour and twenty minutes one-way) and am presently taking
my first programming class. Because of this lengthy drive 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.
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: marc@lpi.liant.com (Marc Nissenbaum)
Subject: Re: Student seeking alternative
Reply-To: marc@lpi.liant.com	
Organization: Liant Software Corporation, Framingham MA	
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:47:47 GMT

In article <GWELKER.1.727732957@bsa3.kent.edu>, GWELKER@bsa3.kent.edu (Greg Welker) writes:
|> I'm a commuter (hour and twenty minutes one-way) and am presently taking
|> my first programming class. Because of this lengthy drive 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.

We use to sell a DOS COBOL/85 true compiler, but I'm not sure
if we still do (I'll check).  Anyone interested in running under UNIX?
From: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk (Clive Grace)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Cobol Books for Sale
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:41:00 GMT
Reply-To: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk
Cc: cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk

UK-based books clearout

I have the following books for sale. If you live in the UK and want any 
of these, please email me. Each book costs #10 (ten uk-sterling pounds), 
Postage and Packaging is calculated on an individual basis -- basically 
the more books you buy the cheaper it gets :-)

COBOL Programming 
=================
VS COBOL- For COBOL Programmers         R.J.Sandler 
Simplified Structured COBOL         D.McCracken/ D.G.Golden 

Email me if you are after more info or want the full list

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  ..    "When I grow up, I want to stop being a computer journalist|
| .OO.    and learn how to write."                                  |
| O/\O                                                              |
|  --                              Tanais - friend to all furkindred|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk | Bisexual knitter of quality since 1992|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: lambert@stein.u.washington.edu (D. Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: comp-3 and ascii data representation
Date: 26 Jan 1993 05:19:12 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Summary: Looking for automatic conversion program/technique

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

Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: Hello, anybody out there ?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:32:49 GMT

mikek@shared.com (Mike Kenny) writes:

>6. debug tools :
>
>   To my eyes it seems that the one true advantage of the proprietary
>   manufacturer was that the could supply the same development and
>   debug tools with all languages supplied on their hardware.  But where
>   are the integrated debug environments on UNIX ?
>
>   Has anybody else encountered this requirement ? found a solution ?

Yes, I have needed to use a debugger.
The ACU debugger is pretty good. (My one major complaint was that
it used paragraph names rather than using paragraph within section,
which was basically useless for us since our coding standard was that
ALL paragraphs were named 'SECT-CONTROL'.)

>   lain awake at night dreaming of gdb ?

No, I dreamt of Borland's Turbo Debugger and Turbo Profiler ;-)
Especially the profiler - or *any* profiler.
What do you do when your customers complain that your 300,000-line
COBOL system is too slow? :-(

>I could go on, but these are MY major complaints with the standards and
>the current state of COBOL. What are yours ?
>
>I am aware that for many people the important issues are those relating
>to screen and file handling and perhaps somebody will post some of these
>if we can get some real COBOL dialog started here. For my own case, we
>use third party screen handlers that need no interaction with the COBOL
>and most of our file handling is done by calls to a database package.

We wrote our own screen handler and file handler in COBOL.
(Not quite as masochistic as writing your own COBOL compiler in COBOL ;-)

As regards alt. vs comp. status of alt.cobol, if you don't like it then
change it! Read the guide on creating a new newgroup in news.announce.new-users
(or somewhere there in the news hierarchy - perhaps news.answers), post
a Request For Discussion, then issue a Call For Votes, etc.

-- 
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: harrym@netcom.com (Harry Myhre)
Subject: Re: Re; Why COBOL for the 90's
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:50:35 GMT

referring to your article about object-oriented COBOL. I think it's a natural,
too. If somebody can do it right and make it useable, they're going to make
a lot of money. I'm no expert on object-oriented anything, but I've learned
enough about it to see the potential for developing secure systems. These
days in the mainframe world, security is at the top of a lot of people's
list.
 
There will be a problem with some people getting used to the new environment.
I would say that most of the mainframe people I've met in my career really
aren't interested in learning anything new and would rather continue
quite happily with their old Model T Fords.
From: Fabien.Loeffel@seco.unine.ch
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Look for a compiler
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:19:55 MET
Organization: University of Neuchatel, Switzerland

Hi,

I am looking for a cobol compiler.

Could someone answer me where I can find one ?

If you could give me the name of a good compiler and price or
the name of an anonymous ftp site contening a (bad,good or excellent)
compiler, it will be very appreciated.


P.S: It is a compiler for msdos system (and one of my friend is searching
     one for c64 system.)


Thanks in advance!

Fabien.Loeffel@seco.unine.ch
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: Don Nelson <nelson_don@comm.tandem.com>
Subject: Re: comp-3 and ascii data representation
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:13:40 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:00:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.153424.8408@mfltd.co.uk> James Fidell,
jfid@mfltd.co.uk writes:
>
>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.
>
Not true.  See below.  All vendors must pass the audit tests and they
require 
reading and writing tapes that can be transported amongst systems (there
is an 
ISO/ANSI standard for these tapes).

>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.
>
Vendors don't use these to tie people into their systems.  They do it
because 
their particular architecture is different than others.  COMP and similar 
formats are particular to their machine and therefore differ from those
on 
other machines.  This is done for efficiency (arithmetic with COMP items
can 
be as much as a hundred times faster than with DISPLAY fields).

>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.

It does get you somewhere.  The ISO/ANSI COBOL Standard does state that 
certain data types are portable.  If the user wants portable files the
method 
is simple.  Do not use any USAGEs other than DISPLAY (the default usage).
 
Specify the SIGN IS LEADING|TRAILING SEPARATE clause for all signed
numeric 
items.  Make the records fixed length.  Write them to a tape that can be
read 
on the other system.  That will do it.  COBOL was designed to allow
porting 
files and programs and it works fine as long as you stick with standard
stuff.

Don Nelson
COBOL Development, Tandem Computers, Inc 
nelson_don@comm.tandem.com
No clever quotes here
From: carlton@def.bae.co.uk (Carlton Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: COBOL Compiler for the IBM PC
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:20:17 GMT
Reply-To: carlton@def.bae.co.uk
Organization: British Aerospace (Defence) Ltd.

Hi,

  I appologise if this is a FAQ, but I am new to this newsgroup.
  
  Does anyone know of an archive site which contains a public domain or shareware
  COBOl compiler for the PC ?  Also, if there is a FAQ for this group, could
  someone tell me where it is archived ?
  
  Please reply directly to my e-mail address.
  
  Thanks.
  

Carlton Thomas
--------------
carlton@def.bae.co.uk
From: map@sequent.com (Michael Perry)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: cobol
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:57:55 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

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.

Someone correct me if they know different, but it's been told to me
that the MicroFocus Cobol compiler is written in Cobol.

Mike
-- 
     "... and then some"           Bruce Willis - The Last Boy Scout
From: tdarcos@digex.digex.com (Paul Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Cobol for UNIX?
Date: 21 Jan 1993 12:29:12 GMT
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

rturkia@cs.joensuu.fi (Riku Turkia) writes:
: I'd like to know if there is any free Cobol compilers available for Unix.
: 
: Riku Turkia	rturkia@cs.joensuu.fi
: 

Seems like everyone wants a cobol compiler.  If you can find a CP/M 8080
emulator, there is a free one for that.  I have a CP/M emulator written by
Joan Riff for the PC that allows someone to run 8080 code on an 8086,
allowing the operation of most CP/M software.
From: nelson_don@comm.tandem.com (Don Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Re; Why COBOL for the 90's
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:05:38 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers
X-Xxdate: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:19:01 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16

In article <ewBsXB2w165w@ruth.UUCP> David Douthitt, rat@ruth.UUCP writes:
>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....
>
I am quite mystified by the "HAR" stuff.  Is if funny that nobody is
implelenting
something that is not ready?  Anyhow, the humor escapes me.

Apparently David did not get what I was saying.  The OOCTG group is
working
on changes to Standard COBOL to add object-oriented functionality, not to
create a new language.  The changes will fit in quite well and it should
be
understandable by most COBOL programmers.  There are not zillions of
changes, but a reasonable number of them.

Don Nelson
COBOL Development, Tandem Computers, Inc 
nelson_don@comm.tandem.com
No clever quotes here
From: rma@mfltd.co.uk (Richard M. Ashton (x5422))
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: cobol
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:26:28 GMT
Reply-To: rma@mfltd.co.uk
Distribution: alt
Organization: Micro Focus Ltd (UK)

In article <1993Jan26.225755.1547@sequent.com>, map@sequent.com (Michael Perry) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
|> Someone correct me if they know different, but it's been told to me
|> that the MicroFocus Cobol compiler is written in Cobol.
|

This is indeed true.

-- 
Richard M. Ashton      | Micro Focus,    | Tel: 0635-565422
Systems Programmer,    | 26 West Street, | Fax: 0635-33966
International Customer | Newbury, Berks. | rma@mfltd.co.uk
Engineering Group.     | RG13 1JT.       |
From: tdarcos@digex.digex.com (Paul Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: cobol
Date: 21 Jan 1993 12:14:39 GMT
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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.

: I'd sure rather use it to do business transaction updating and reporting
: than C though.

If I had to do business transaction updating I'd use Pascal before I'd use
C, simply because I think C is a dangerous language.  Not as dangerous as
ADA, but still pretty bad.  As bad as all the things people say about
COBOL, at least it wasn't designed by someone who got the absolutely BRAIN
DEAD idea that making case significant was a good idea.  Of all the
criticisms people can make about cobol, this disasterously bad concept in
C is probably one of the worst design choices ever made.

: Yes, but for some people, denigrating COBOL is probably their only form of
: recreation.

I like the line that a Basic-Plus/Macro programmer liked to use: 
  "COBOL is only good for reading pictures."
From: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: Student seeking alternative
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey)
Organization: CCS Enterprises, Inc.

In article <1993Jan25.214747.1807@lpi.liant.com> marc@lpi.liant.com writes:
>We use to sell a DOS COBOL/85 true compiler, but I'm not sure
>if we still do (I'll check).  Anyone interested in running under UNIX?

Yes, there are many people out here that are interested in UNIX.
Except that for practical reasons many of the Cobol compilers just do
not fit!!!  And it is frustrating.

If you are trying to put together an application for resale you have
to factor in the actual cost, such as runtime costs.  Most of the compilers
we have reviewed and checked out have very high runtime costs per site.
Like $500-1000 per cpu.  If you are trying to market an application in
the $1995.00 range, it means that the compiler company is going to make
more money on their runtime that is required than you will for the application.
It appears that all of the pricing has been geared for the "We sell an 
entire accounting application and you don't need but one runtime".  It is
very different when you are selling a $15,000 application than if you
sell a < $2000 product and it is only one program and that is all you
will ever sell.

I have not seen any real answers to this dilemna.
If anyone has any ideas or knows of a Unix/Xenix Cobol compiler that
is different, please inform me and the net.

-- 
>.. Bob Willey, CDP          ..  |  ..  uunet!consult!bob  bob@ccs.com   ..<
>.. CCS Enterprises, Inc.    ..  |  ..   Office: (410) 820-4670          ..<
>.. P.O. Drawer 1690         ..  |  ..      FAX: (410) 476-5261          ..<
>.. Easton, Maryland 21601 ......|......... BBS: (410) 476-5098 ...........<
From: schlaget@udo.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Oliver Schlageter)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: OOCTG
Date: 24 Jan 1993 12:44:22 GMT
Organization: University of Dortmund, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: udo.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
Keywords: OOCTG OOP

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?

Thanks
        Oliver Schlageter
      
        internet: schlaget@udo.informatik.uni-dortmund.de
        usenet:   os@roesch.uucp

Newsgroups: alt.cobol