HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner)
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:42:43 GMT

rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert C Allender) writes:
: How about posting why COBOL is
: any better/worse than C.  Whaddaya think?

Well, I think *Perl* is better than both. :)

Random thoughts on all three, maybe we can get some debate going:

Perl is what C should be, and C as it is now should be a lower-level
language ('c'? :^)) for special cases when you need bit-by-bit access.

COBOL is really good for churning through text when you know what
the text will look like ahead of time. It wouldn't be good churning
through an nntp log file, though, becuase it has many different kinds of
records.

C is really well adapted to dynamic stuff, like pointers, which 
may or may not be good :^) It is good for dynamic data structures
like linked lists, which I doubt could be done in COBOL...

Perl & C both support recursion, something that hadn't been invented when 
COBOL was developed (right? :^)).

COBOL and Perl both are easier to use than C, because they are more
forgiving and don't lock you into C's rigid syntax. COBOL and Perl 
also do more for you, instead of starting every program from
scratch like in C. This is good to me, because I dislike re-inventing
the wheel, but sometimes it's better to re-invent wheels, and some programmers
thrive on it. 

Both COBOL and Perl aren't designed for interactive use, although both have
add-ons to let you use them that way. C wasn't either, but at least
it admits it up front :^)

I would like some UNIX cobol, to churn some logs of NNTP transfers
that are in a very regular format. But Perl's doing it fine. :)

COBOL seems to be easier to scan & get the idea of what the code is supposed
to do than either Perl or C, which both can get pretty cryptic if you get
into their idioms.

I don't believe Perl has been ported to VMS, although both C and COBOL have.
If perl *has* been ported, let me know where I can get a copy!

Scott
From: jitze@svl.cdc.com (Jitze Couperus)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:30:00 GMT

nelson_don@comm.tandem.com (Don Nelson) writes:

>One chap wanted to know how much experience people here had.  I started
>working on COBOL compilers in 1964 (before that it was puched cards

Its a race between Don and myself so far for longevity, Can't remember
whether it was '63 or '64 when I first uttered those dread words
  
ENVIRONMENT DIVISION

   ...and left the period off. The compile then took about 3 hours
before I got a useless source listing back. The RCA 301 was fine machine...
--
Jitze Couperus          Control Data - Silicon Valley Operations
jitze@svl.cdc.com       Voice (408) 496-4334  FAX (408) 496-4106
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: UPPER vs. lower case
Summary: Upper case for code; lower case for comments ?
Date: 30 Jul 92 10:39:50 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

Regarding the current discussion about whether people use upper or lower
case: one style I have seen is to write all the code in upper case, but to
put all the comments in lower case. This makes the comments stand out quite
distinctly, althought I still find the uppercase code is not terribly
readable.

-- 
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: block@ief.itg.ti.com (Bucky Block)
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:17:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
	<1992Jul29.012052.2193@sobeco.com> <Bs5xtp.Fnv@snuffy.wa.atk.com>
Organization: IEF Developement, Texas Instruments Inc., Plano Texas
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at Texas Instruments Inc.
              The opinions expressed within are those of the user and not
              necessarily those of Texas Instruments.

In article <Bs5xtp.Fnv@snuffy.wa.atk.com> mluders@snuffy.wa.atk.com (Matthew_Luders) writes:

   >First, let me commend you for continuing to learn new languages throughout
   >your career, especially languages as different as COBOL and C.  I wonder,
   >however, if you are the exception rather than the rule.  Most programmers seem
   >to know several languages, but they are all fall into either "business"
   >(COBOL, RPG-III, DB2, JCL, etc.) or "engineering" (C, Pascal, Ada, FORTRAN,
   >etc.).


Perhaps we should be thinking about a level of abstraction above conventional
languages, like those provided by a CASE tool. One of the *problems* we run
into with CASE tools, is the users "dependence" on the generated code, be it
COBOL/C/ADA. etc. The "Model" the CASE tool uses to describe the application
is the *real* output of the "Software Development Process", the actual "code"
is nothing but a "derived" product (For some case tools).


   >I have never been given a set of coding standards by management (although I
   >religiously follow my own), and have never taken part in a structured walk-
   >through.  Are these common practices?

The use of CASE *forces* design methodology (Although you might not like
it :-)  ), and insures that all your applications are similar. It also 
frees the programmers to spend more time on *DESIGN* rather on simply 
"spewing" out lines of code.


( Remember I have vested interest in CASE tools, so I am somewhat biased :-) )

--

Bucky Block                         |     block@ief.itg.ti.com
IEF Development                     |     TIMSG: BLOC
Texas Instruments, Plano Texas      |     (214) 575-4732

Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:10:03 GMT

Perl is a neat language, but it's substantially less
readable/understandable/maintainable than C, from what I've seen...  

The hallmark of COBOL systems is maintenance.  That's because they
tend to last a very long time.  A language that does not
provide/support software understandability and maintenance is not an
adequate replacement for COBOL.  

				dave
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:17:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner):
:I don't believe Perl has been ported to VMS, although both C and COBOL have.
:If perl *has* been ported, let me know where I can get a copy!

My information, which may be dated, has the following.  Consult comp.sys.vms
for further inquiries.

    And here's some VMS information from Rao V. Akella 
    <rao@moose.cccs.umn.edu>:  (this appears to be an old port)

	You can pick up Perl for VMS (version 3.0.1.1 patchlevel 4) via
	anonymous ftp from unixd1.cis.pitt.edu [130.49.253.1] in the
	software/vms/perl subdirectory (there are two files there:
	perl-pl18.bck and perl-pl4.bck).

    There is also a v3.018 on info.rz.uni-ulm.de [134.60.1.125] or
    vms.huji.ac.il [128.139.4.3] in /pub/VMS/misc (information courtesy 
    of Anders Rolff <rolff@scotty.eurokom.ie>).

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all.
                -- Ronald Reagan
Xref: sparky alt.cobol:322 misc.jobs.contract:2580
From: leoadams@ccc.Gwinnett.COM (Computer Career Conne)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol,bit.listserv.db2-1,bit.listserv.cics-1,misc.jobs.contract,atl.job
Subject: OS/COBOL/DB2/CICS P/A'S (Recruiter) ***********
Date: 19 Jul 92 20:25:54 GMT
Organization: Computer Career Connections, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Excellent opportunity exists for OS/COBOL or COBOL2 P/A's with a minimum
of 2 years experience. Ideal candidates should be proficient in OS COBOL
or COBOL II coding with solid DB2 experience. Any CICS Command Level exp-
erience is a plus. Positions are in North Central New Jersey and pay approx
imately $30/Hr. or $240/Day. Only U.S. or Canadian Citizens and/or Permanent 
Residents with the required credentials will be considered.

--
Mr. Leo Adams
Tech Services, Inc.
4300 N. University Dr. Suite C-101
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33351
Telephone: (305) 741-3654 (Ft.Lauderdale,FL)
Telephone: (305) 553-3619 (Miami, FL.)

Fax #1   : (305) 741-5408
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Realtime Development, Colorado Springs, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:43:37 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu:
:From article <EMERY.92Jul27111003@Dr_No.mitre.org>, by emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery):
:> Perl is a neat language, but it's substantially less
:> readable/understandable/maintainable than C, from what I've seen...  
:> 
:> The hallmark of COBOL systems is maintenance.  That's because they
:> tend to last a very long time.  A language that does not
:> provide/support software understandability and maintenance is not an
:> adequate replacement for COBOL.  

Several thoughts:

    There has never been a language written in which it is 
    impossible to write illegible code.  Good programmers
    write good code in all languages; bad programmers write
    bad code is all languages.

    Make something so simple that only a child can use it, 
    and only children shall.

    UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, 
    because that would also stop you from doing clever things.

:I agree 100%.  COBOL does wonders with DP and that's why it's here now
:and forever, but I _sure_ wouldn't want to write a word processor or a
:windows application in it!  Thus, C and Pascal will always have their
:place.
:
:Is there a good Perl book out?  I regret to admit that I've never used
:it, but I would like to read up on it.

The only published Perl book is ``the Camel Book'', written by Larry Wall
<lwall@netlabs.com> and Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@ora.com>, published as
a Nutshell Handbook by O'Reilly & Associates and entitled _Programming
Perl_.  Besides serving as a reference guide for Perl, it also contains
tutorial material, is a great source of examples and cookbook procedures,
as well as wit and wisdom, tricks and traps, pranks and pitfalls.  I
suggest consulting the newsgroup comp.lang.perl for more information about
the language.  I'll repost the FAQ there in a few days.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist
A Law of Computer Programming:
        Make it possible for programmers to write in English and you
        will find the programmers cannot write in English.
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: mblakele@jarthur.claremont.edu (Michael Blakeley)
Subject: Cobol resources on the Internet
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:02:06 GMT


	Hi! As the Subject line hints, I'm interested in any internet or other
resources/discussion groups/whatever on cobol. Please e-mail, and I'll 
summarize for the net. Thanks,
				-- tad
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert C Allender)
Subject: The inevitable question
Originator: rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:00:22 GMT

O.K. COBOL hacks around the U.S., here's a guy whose language of
choice is C, but feels guilty about not keeping up on his COBOL.
After 4 years in different mainframe environments and 2 years of COBOL
in college, it seems I just oughta keep with it,  even tho' I'm over
on a PC doing C.  Is there a PC COBOL compiler to be had on the market
that can be afforded on a modest programmer's income?

Secondly, how long has this newsgroup been around?  I just signed up
and expected to have *pages* of articles to read, but there aren't!
Let's stir up some traffic out there...How about posting why COBOL is
any better/worse than C.  Whaddaya think?

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Robert C. Allender    |  "Exactly!" said Deep Thought. "So once you do | 
| rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  |  know what the question actually is, you'll    | 
| rca@bfs.uwm.edu       |  know what the answer means."                  |
From: nelson_don@comm.tandem.com (Don Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: The future of COBOL?!?!
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:43:39 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0

I might mention in this thread that object-oriented COBOL is under 
development right now (in the CODASYL COBOL Committee Object-Oriented 
COBOL Task Group).  Almost all of the functionality is already figured 
out and the syntax is now being developed.  It will allow making 
existing code into an object and will not require COBOL programmers to 
become computer scientists to use it.  It will fit right into COBOL as 
it is now with no incompatibilities other than a few reserved words.  It 
will introduce pointers, recursion, and other stuff like that so dear to 
C programmers hearts.  It will not be part of the next Standard (COBOL 
1995?), but will probably appear as an addendum to that Standard.  I 
also expect that there will be some implementations of it around within 
the next couple of years.

Don Nelson
COBOL Development, Tandem Computers, Inc
ex-Chariman, CODASYL COBOL Committee
nelson_don@comm.tandem.com
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner)
Subject: Re: The future of COBOL?!?!
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:21:53 GMT

rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert C Allender) writes:
:       What do you think about these proposed
:       solutions that C++ supposedly offers?  

The programmer who writes "cob2c++" is going to make more money than
there is currently on the planet earth. Unless he works for GNU or some
other non-profit organization, of course.

Scott

Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<1992Jul29.012052.2193@sobeco.com> <Bs5xtp.Fnv@snuffy.wa.atk.com>
	<BLOCK.92Jul29171746@ief.itg.ti.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:43:45 GMT

>Perhaps we should be thinking about a level of abstraction above conventional
>languages, like those provided by a CASE tool. One of the *problems* we run
>into with CASE tools, is the users "dependence" on the generated code, be it
>COBOL/C/ADA. etc. The "Model" the CASE tool uses to describe the application
>is the *real* output of the "Software Development Process", the actual "code"
>is nothing but a "derived" product (For some case tools).

I agree with the philosophy here, but let me point out that Ada
already supports this view.  One of the things that makes Ada
"different" from COBOL and C is its support for higher-level
structures.  Therefore, we already talk about the program structure in
terms of packages, the concurrency structure in terms of tasks, etc.
Even when the implementation is not Ada (which has occured), the Ada
tasking model, for instance, provides a good framework for discussing
distributed systems.  It's easy to describe deadlock in about 3
sentences using "AdaSpeak".  

In this case, Ada is halfway between a conventional language, and a
CASE tool/methodology.  And this has proven to be one of the best
features of Ada and its associated 'culture'.  

			dave
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: janiadi@elof.iit.edu (Aditya Jani)
Subject: test please ignore
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
Distribution: il
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 04:49:58 GMT



Only a test
.

Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert C Allender)
Subject: The future of COBOL?!?!
Originator: rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:24:05 GMT

After reading one of the responses to "The Inevitable Question" I was compelled to ask this of the COBOL programmers in the world:  

      The C language has caused a bigger uproar in the past few years than
      Pascal did way back when.  Now there's the object-oriented C++ that
      uses classes and promotes encapsulation and polymorphism.  Since a big 
      problem with COBOL maintenance seems to be the endless patching of
      endless patches in old code,  What do you think about these proposed
      solutions that C++ supposedly offers?  

I'm certain that this will be an interesting debate!  





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Robert C. Allender    |  "Exactly!" said Deep Thought. "So once you do | 
| rca@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  |  know what the question actually is, you'll    | 
| rca@bfs.uwm.edu       |  know what the answer means."                  | 
|                       |        -The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy   | 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 




Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: Don Nelson <nelson_don@comm.tandem.com>
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Organization: Tandem Computers
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:05:59 GMT


>It's not just a VAX/VMS thing.  I work on a Honeywell DPS 90 mainframe
running
>the GCOS operating system, and its COBOL-74 compiler also allows lower
case.
>It's at least 10 years old, because the that's how old the manuals are. 
I'm
>not positive, but I believe that the language itself is defined to be
case
>insensitive.

As I said in another thread, COBOL 85 is defined to be case insensitive
(except
in nonnumeric literals and data).  Actually, most implementors have had
lower-case letters in their COBOL compilers since the late 70s (even with
COBOL 74 even though it defined upper-case only).

>Personally, I find code written in lower case to be *much* more readable
than
>that written in all capital letters.  I know there are a number of
studies that
>bear me out.  Apparently, people read by recognizing the form of entire
words,
>not individual letters, and words written in lower case are more
distinct from
>each other.  I'm glad to hear there are other people writing COBOL in
lower
>case, but I have a feeling we're in the minority.  True?

It never ceases to amaze me that I still see lots of programs that use no
lower-case whatsoever.  Because I see the programs that come in with bug
reports I get to see ones from all kinds of different users from all over
the
world.  The majority are written in upper-case.  Also, I've noticed that
in
e-mail lots of people have yet to discover how to use lower-case to write
messages.  Maybe they are afraid of goofing on capitalization or
something.

Don Nelson
COBOL Development, Tandem Computers, Inc
ex-Chariman, CODASYL COBOL Committee
nelson_don@comm.tandem.com
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
From: Don Nelson <nelson_don@comm.tandem.com>
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
Organization: Tandem Computers
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.0
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:59:51 GMT


>It's not just a VAX/VMS thing.  I work on a Honeywell DPS 90 mainframe
running
>the GCOS operating system, and its COBOL-74 compiler also allows lower
case.
>It's at least 10 years old, because the that's how old the manuals are. 
I'm
>not positive, but I believe that the language itself is defined to be
case
>insensitive.

As I said in another thread, COBOL 85 is defined to be case insensitive
(except
in nonnumeric literals and data).  Actually, most implementors have had
lower-case letters in their COBOL compilers since the late 70s (even with
COBOL 74 even though it defined upper-case only).

>Personally, I find code written in lower case to be *much* more readable
than
>that written in all capital letters.  I know there are a number of
studies that
>bear me out.  Apparently, people read by recognizing the form of entire
words,
>not individual letters, and words written in lower case are more
distinct from
>each other.  I'm glad to hear there are other people writing COBOL in
lower
>case, but I have a feeling we're in the minority.  True?

It never ceases to amaze me that I still see lots of programs that use no
lower-case whatsoever.  Because I see the programs that come in with bug
reports I get to see ones from all kinds of different users from all over
the
world.  The majority are written in upper-case.  Also, I've noticed that
in
e-mail lots of people have yet to discover how to use lower-case to write
messages.  Maybe they are afraid of goofing on capitalization or
something.

Don Nelson
COBOL Development, Tandem Computers, Inc
ex-Chariman, CODASYL COBOL Committee
nelson_don@comm.tandem.com
Newsgroups: alt.cobol
Subject: Re: The inevitable question
From: oecn_smith@mec.ohio.gov
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:28:05 -0400
Reply-To: smith@leeca.oecn.ohio.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: Metrop. Educ. Council, Columbus, OH

In article <Bs2r39.Hot@snuffy.wa.atk.com>, mluders@snuffy.wa.atk.com 
(Matthew_Luders) writes:

[Some very good examples of COBOL maintainability deleted]
> 
> There is a bright side.  For all the criticism that COBOL gets from software
> engineers, it is possible to write structured, readable, maintainable code with
> it.  Its record and field handling capabilities make it well-suited for
> creating reports, which is probably what it's used for the most.  But the fact
> that a program is written in COBOL certainly does *not* guarantee (or even
> improve the chances) that it's maintainable.  In fact, you could argue that
> there are elements of COBOL that tend to make programs written in it *less*
> maintainable (e.g. the lack of local variables).  Some of these problems were
> addressed with the release of COBOL-85 (e.g. the addition of the end-if and
> evaluate statements), but I don't know how widely COBOL-85 is being used yet.
> 
> I'd be curious to hear other people's opinions on these topics.

I've been a programming seriously (read: making a living) in COBOL for about 6
year now.  I started with the local Board of Ed. about 1 and 1/2 years ago and
I was presented with a new set of manuals that contained the ANSI-85 stuff. 
All my programs now are written to comply with that standard.  I have no idea
how I got along without the end-read,end-if, end-perform, etc!

I work with 2 other programmers that have been with the Board of Ed for 10
years.  They refuse to incorporate the ANSI-85 extentions, won't use blank
lines between paragraphs, won't comment (they won't even put a block at the top
of the program saying with the blasted thing does)!  They address the screen in
tele-type fashion.

Truthfully, I have found it to be more cost effective and faster to rewrite
their programs from scratch than to try to maintain it.

I have a quick question:  Currently, I am programming in VAX/VMS COBOL, which
is very kind to me and allows me to code in LOWER case.  Now, is this just a
VAX/VMS thing (I never tried it on the IBM running CMS) ?

> Matt Luders
> mluders@snuffy.wa.atk.com
> 
> These are my opinions only, not those of Alliant Techsystems Inc.

Bob Smith -- smith@leeca.oecn.ohio.gov
disclaimer:  the Lorain County Board of Ed. would deny I spoke for them even if
             I did.

Newsgroups: alt.cobol