i hAve been worKing as a softWare deVeloPer for over x19 yEars and have found that uSing a keyBoard everyDay does not seem to have had any impAct on my spelLing abiliTies, but for some reaSon it has caused me to insert rAndom capItal letters in the cenTer of words; for some reaSon i alSo end most senTences with a semiColon ratHer than the cusToMary perIod;
--
Silfax
> Yes. They all were based on MOS 6502-series chips.
But the sound, video, & i/O were handled differently on the 2 platforms. Tje programmer assigned to the C64 version was probably better off rewriting. About the only thing he would have been able to keep was game logic, not platform specific stuff.
I think that PROGRAM-ID is sort of self explanatory the DIVISIONS must be present, but are mostly to tell the compiler what is coming up next
I personally prefer "GOBACK" to "STOP RUN", as it returns to the calling program, the "STOP RUN" returns to the OS, which might be a bad idea, if you are several subroutines down.
of those 21 lines
5 were either comments or blank lines
3 were superfluous labels
4 were required by the COBOL standard -- mostly for documentation purposes, and to tell the compiler what to expect next
1 was a name so the operating system could find the program (unlike Java, the program source can have a different name than the actual program)
1 was a do nothing statement as the program was coded
2 were basically hints to the compiler -- not actual program code
2 were basically compiler directives, allowing compilation for a different architecture than where the program source was stored
of the 3 remaining lines of actual program code
2 were extensions to the language, a single display would have worked also
1 was a return to the operating system (some compilers will generate that one if not present)
The whole program could have been written as
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. TEST0001.
ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
DATA DIVISION.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
DISPLAY 'HELLO WORLD'
GOBACK.
I think that PROGRAM-ID is sort of self explanatory
the DIVISIONS must be present, but are mostly to tell the compiler what is coming up next
I personally prefer "GOBACK" to "STOP RUN", as it returns to the calling program, the "STOP RUN" returns to the OS, which might be a bad idea, if you are several subroutines down.
Finally, COBOL is COBOL. Programs designed in COBOL are, on average, less complex than today's programs. They require more resources to develop, which means more manpower or more
Individual legacy programs might be less complex, than today's programs, but I would say that overall, the entire system of programs is as, or even more complex than some of today's.
time. Also can COBOL be integrated with a front end website? Generate PDFs on demand? Perform EDI? Have sophisticated tools to make integration with newer languages and systems easier? Can you build it as an app on top of a relational or OO database?
Front end website with COBOL -- Been there done that, done it using a COBOL back end also
PDFs on the fly -- never done it personally, but there are libraries to do so
EDI -- yep pretty much every payroll, banking system in the world that is written in COBOL does it
Integration with newer languages -- yes
App on top of a relational/OO DB -- yes
Slashdot Mirror
i hAve been worKing as a softWare deVeloPer for over x19 yEars and have found that uSing a keyBoard everyDay does not seem to have had any impAct on my spelLing abiliTies, but for some reaSon it has caused me to insert rAndom capItal letters in the cenTer of words; for some reaSon i alSo end most senTences with a semiColon ratHer than the cusToMary perIod;
--
Silfax
un-pc -- since when did Dell start selling Macs? (sorry could not resist)
Yeah, but do you really want to *talk* to a girl who would judge you based on your computer brand?
It would be the intelligent ones that recognize the apple, so yes.
> Yes. They all were based on MOS 6502-series chips.
But the sound, video, & i/O were handled differently on the 2 platforms. Tje programmer assigned to the C64 version was probably better off rewriting. About the only thing he would have been able to keep was game logic, not platform specific stuff.
ARGH --- hit submit, not preview with default set to html....
it should be
of those 21 lines 5 were either comments or blank lines
3 were superfluous labels
4 were required by the COBOL standard -- mostly for documentation purposes, and to tell the compiler what to expect next
1 was a name so the operating system could find the program (unlike Java, the program source can have a different name than the actual program)
1 was a do nothing statement as the program was coded
2 were basically hints to the compiler -- not actual program code
2 were basically compiler directives, allowing compilation for a different architecture than where the program source was stored
of the 3 remaining lines of actual program code
2 were extensions to the language, a single display would have worked also
1 was a return to the operating system (some compilers will generate that one if not present)
The whole program could have been written as
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. TEST0001.
ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
DATA DIVISION.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
DISPLAY 'HELLO WORLD'
GOBACK.
I think that PROGRAM-ID is sort of self explanatory the DIVISIONS must be present, but are mostly to tell the compiler what is coming up next
I personally prefer "GOBACK" to "STOP RUN", as it returns to the calling program, the "STOP RUN" returns to the OS, which might be a bad idea, if you are several subroutines down.
of those 21 lines 5 were either comments or blank lines 3 were superfluous labels 4 were required by the COBOL standard -- mostly for documentation purposes, and to tell the compiler what to expect next 1 was a name so the operating system could find the program (unlike Java, the program source can have a different name than the actual program) 1 was a do nothing statement as the program was coded 2 were basically hints to the compiler -- not actual program code 2 were basically compiler directives, allowing compilation for a different architecture than where the program source was stored of the 3 remaining lines of actual program code 2 were extensions to the language, a single display would have worked also 1 was a return to the operating system (some compilers will generate that one if not present) The whole program could have been written as IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. PROGRAM-ID. TEST0001. ENVIRONMENT DIVISION. DATA DIVISION. PROCEDURE DIVISION. DISPLAY 'HELLO WORLD' GOBACK. I think that PROGRAM-ID is sort of self explanatory the DIVISIONS must be present, but are mostly to tell the compiler what is coming up next I personally prefer "GOBACK" to "STOP RUN", as it returns to the calling program, the "STOP RUN" returns to the OS, which might be a bad idea, if you are several subroutines down.
Finally, COBOL is COBOL. Programs designed in COBOL are, on average, less complex than today's programs. They require more resources to develop, which means more manpower or more
Individual legacy programs might be less complex, than today's programs, but I would say that overall, the entire system of programs is as, or even more complex than some of today's.
time. Also can COBOL be integrated with a front end website? Generate PDFs on demand? Perform EDI? Have sophisticated tools to make integration with newer languages and systems easier? Can you build it as an app on top of a relational or OO database?
Front end website with COBOL -- Been there done that, done it using a COBOL back end also PDFs on the fly -- never done it personally, but there are libraries to do so EDI -- yep pretty much every payroll, banking system in the world that is written in COBOL does it Integration with newer languages -- yes App on top of a relational/OO DB -- yes
I'm not versed in COBOL, but I assume it has some sort of loop (maybe not a FOR loop, but a WHILE / DO UNTIL etc.)
in COBOL it is called PERFORM, and can do any of the above FOR/WHILE/UNTIL, depending on exactly how it is written.
not if you could go from COBOL to a language that supports classes, or even just more modularity would be great ...
modern versions of COBOL do support classes.
Frank Gorshin played the Riddler, not the Joker in the TV series. The Joker was played by Cesar Romero