Slashdot Mirror

Heh, COBOL for .Net.

- T

For extra stability, I recommend running COBOL on .NET. That's three more capital letters right there!

I've done all that with COBOL., except the portable stuff. Not that I couldn't.

http://www.netcobol.com/cobol-compiler-for-net/

Anyways, you comparison doesn't matter. It's not which is a better language, or which can be used to build more shit.

The shit that's out there, COBOL has fewer bugs...which is too be expected.

It doesn't mean Java is useless.

"Beside server-side,"
yeah, I like how to try to move the goal post to fit your statement.

In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

Never heard that one before. You're 100% right. In theory you could compile Python or C**** (I will not utter it here) to run on the M$ DLR. But in practice that would never happen, absolutely not, no way

I just don't see why anyone would need it that bad.

Yeah, there's obviously no advantage in having a standardised runtime engine. Must be why no such thing exists.

And hey, if you're really a sucker for heavy punishment, Fujitsu makes COBOL for .NET! ~

No no no. COBOL.NET. What? It's not a joke? Dude!

Be careful what you're asking for...

I've been hoping for COBOL.NET.

http://www.netcobol.com/

...and FORTRAN.NET

http://www.lahey.com/lf71/lf71.htm

and RPG.NET

http://74.196.41.169:8084/

That is old news: http://www.netcobol.com/products/Fujitsu-NetCOBOL-for-.NET/overview

Have no fear then.

Oh, by the way, Fujitsu must really be into BDSM or something - they also offer COBOL for .NET.

VB.Net is the exact opposite, one might as well code in COBOL.Net.

This NetCOBOL for .NET seems interesting... It integrates with VS2005, the GUI designer, and the ASP.NET designer, but with that kind of syntax, who would want to use it (except companies porting older COBOL code)? I'm not really sure it's fair to compare VB.NET to something like this:

77 String-1 USAGE OBJECT REFERENCE SYS-STRING
.
.
.
INVOKE SYS-STRING "Equals" USING BY VALUE a BY VALUE b RETURNING returnValue

And don't forget COBOL for .NET! Among its features:

• GUI design. (WinForms)
• COBOL support for ASP.NET (LANGUAGE="COBOL")
• Full Integration with Visual Studio.NET 2003 Project Manager.

Here are some screenshots.

And don't forget COBOL for .NET! Among its features:

• GUI design. (WinForms)
• COBOL support for ASP.NET (LANGUAGE="COBOL")
• Full Integration with Visual Studio.NET 2003 Project Manager.

Here are some screenshots.

And don't forget COBOL for .NET! Among its features:

• GUI design. (WinForms)
• COBOL support for ASP.NET (LANGUAGE="COBOL")
• Full Integration with Visual Studio.NET 2003 Project Manager.

Here are some screenshots.

Surely you mean COBOL.net

I can also name a couple what about COBOL when was the last time your wrote a COBOL program for Windows??

Now that you mention it, it's a little disturbing how many people really do that.

A standard will at least give the Mono folks something to point to if Microsoft decides to move the goalposts with later changes to C# or the CLR. We need an open-source implementation of this because Microsoft has the right idea.

The C# versus Java debate is a red herring that's most interesting to language bigots. There's a more important difference between the philosophies. Sun wants the world to write all its code in Pure Java, abandoning the non-Sun environments they currently have. This is a great idea for full software programmer employment, we can spend all our time rewriting the world's code in Java. Not.

Microsoft wants to let people to migrate the stuff they have slaved over for the past 25 or so years into a shiny new Common Language Runtime environment. Yes, there is a new C# language, but the front end can be other languages as well. With minimal changes, a business can take the core of a Cobol program that has proven itself over the past 10 years, recompile it with a Cobol compiler that generates CLR, and drop it down into a new distributed environment. They can write the web interface to that Cobol core in any language they want, including C#, VB, Javascript, Fortran, or even Java (J++) if that's what their current programming staff is trained to use.

For a moment, ignore the language bigotry and disregard whether Microsoft might implement this in some way that will hurt their competitors. Which approach seems to be the most logical to you? Rewrite all the world's code or reuse what you can?

>> If C# doesn't support a language feature,
>> then you bet your Bill Gates nose stain
>> that the Prolog port won't either

C# is just one of many languages available for .NET; Microsoft itself supports JScript and VB.NET in addition to C#. There's even a COBOL. Not all of the CLR's capabilities are exercised by every language, and C# is not the superset of them all. I'm sure Microsoft will need to expand the CLR functions to efficiently accomodate new languages that people want to port to the platform, but what do you expect for a 1.0 version?