Cobol - Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous"

Author

Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous"

Lueko Willms

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

.. Am 27.09.04
schrieb robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests (Robert Wagner)
auf /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in culel0161kn9jkaek60qgk093s5c1vbm76@4ax.com
ueber Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous" (was: If you were inventin

RW> Although 64-bit is rare on desktops, it is common on servers and
RW> mainframes. Intel is testing the low-end waters with the 64-bit
RW> Pentium 4, and AMD with the Opteron. Complete computers with either
RW> chip sell for $500.

I think, only Itanium and Opteron are 64 bit, isn't it? Pentium 4
is also "just" 32 bit, as far as I know.

RW> Unisys Clear Path compiles to 64-bit Wintel ES7000, also IA-64.

The ES7000 server is not one of the Clearpath series; being built
on an array of Intel CPUs (at least up to 32 Itanium CPUs), it runs
either WindowsNt Server or Linux. The Clearpath servers of either the
Univac or Burroughs mainframe tradition incorporate also a subsystem
with Intel-type CPUs, but that is run by WindowsNT or maybe -- I don't
know -- also Linux.

But Unisys does certainly not provide a COBOL compiler neither for
Windows nor for Intel. One would have to use the Microfocus or Fujitsu
compilers. Unisys provides compilers for their OS/2200 and MCP based
mainframe lines.

MfG,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Kein Land kann seine Probleme in dieser globalisierten Welt allein
auf sich gestellt lösen. Entweder wir retten uns alle zusammen oder
wir gehen zusammen unter. Heute mehr denn je gilt das Wort von José
Martí: Das Vaterland ist die ganze Menschheit."
- Fidel Castro, Caracas (Veneuzuela), 3. Februar 1999

Robert Wagner

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

On 27 Sep 2004 08:22:00 GMT, l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms)
wrote:

>. Am 27.09.04
>schrieb robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests (Robert Wagner)
> auf /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in culel0161kn9jkaek60qgk093s5c1vbm76@4ax.com
> ueber Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous" (was: If you were inventin
>
>RW> Although 64-bit is rare on desktops, it is common on servers and
>RW> mainframes. Intel is testing the low-end waters with the 64-bit
>RW> Pentium 4, and AMD with the Opteron. Complete computers with either
>RW> chip sell for $500.
>
> I think, only Itanium and Opteron are 64 bit, isn't it? Pentium 4
>is also "just" 32 bit, as far as I know.

No, Pentium 4 is 64 bit. So too is Xeon.

>RW> Unisys Clear Path compiles to 64-bit Wintel ES7000, also IA-64.
>
> The ES7000 server is not one of the Clearpath series; being built
>on an array of Intel CPUs (at least up to 32 Itanium CPUs), it runs
>either WindowsNt Server or Linux. The Clearpath servers of either the
>Univac or Burroughs mainframe tradition incorporate also a subsystem
>with Intel-type CPUs, but that is run by WindowsNT or maybe -- I don't
>know -- also Linux.

You're right. ES7000 is not marketed as ClearPath.

> But Unisys does certainly not provide a COBOL compiler neither for
>Windows nor for Intel. One would have to use the Microfocus or Fujitsu
>compilers. Unisys provides compilers for their OS/2200 and MCP based
>mainframe lines.

The ES7000 compiler looks like a rebadged Micro Focus.

Lueko Willms

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

.. Am 27.09.04
schrieb robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests (Robert Wagner)
auf /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in ff3gl01qu1k1u47h5qnq4iv9te7qc26bem@4ax.com
ueber Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous"

RW> You're right. ES7000 is not marketed as ClearPath.
[color=darkred]

RW> The ES7000 compiler looks like a rebadged Micro Focus.

Frankly, I do not believe that Unisys provides their own compilers
for either the Windows or the Linux version of the ES7000.

Where did you find such information?

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Das Volk, das ein anderes Volk unterjocht, schmiedet seine eigenen
Ketten." - Karl Marx (1. Januar 1870)

Richard

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote

>
> No, Pentium 4 is 64 bit. So too is Xeon.

That is not entirely true. 'Pentium 4' is just 32 bit. There is no
64 bit in a 'Pentium 4'. There is a newer different processor that is
called the 'Pentium 4 EE' (Extreme Edition) that does have the 64 bit
extensions roughly as AMD has.

To use the 64 bit mode you have to run Linux.

Robert Wagner

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

On 27 Sep 2004 15:05:00 GMT, l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms)
wrote:

>. Am 27.09.04
>schrieb robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests (Robert Wagner)
> auf /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in ff3gl01qu1k1u47h5qnq4iv9te7qc26bem@4ax.com
> ueber Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous"
>
>RW> You're right. ES7000 is not marketed as ClearPath.
>
>
>RW> The ES7000 compiler looks like a rebadged Micro Focus.
>
> Frankly, I do not believe that Unisys provides their own compilers
>for either the Windows or the Linux version of the ES7000.
>
> Where did you find such information?

Chuck Stevens' response is definitive.

I got that impression from this Web page:

http://www.unisys.com/products/es70...on/services.htm

But here a Unisys manager says the tool is branded Micro Focus:

http://www.microfocus.com/closeup/v...ue3/partner.asp

Robert Wagner

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

On 27 Sep 2004 13:11:23 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:

>Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote
>
>
>That is not entirely true. 'Pentium 4' is just 32 bit. There is no
>64 bit in a 'Pentium 4'. There is a newer different processor that is
>called the 'Pentium 4 EE' (Extreme Edition) that does have the 64 bit
>extensions roughly as AMD has.

Not roughly, exactly. It's ironic to see Intel reverse engineering AMD
... something that Intel engineers used to laugh at AMD for doing.

Richard

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote

>
> Not roughly, exactly.

They may be compatible but they are implemented differently, thus they
are not 'identical'.

Richard

2004-09-28, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote

>
> Not roughly, exactly.

Further to previous reply:

"""Intel EM64T

In the face of the competition from the AMD64, Intel released the
EM64T architecture in February, 2004. This is a 64-bit chip which is
largely instruction-set compatible with the AMD64, with very minor
differences in implementation [1]
(http://www.maximumpc.com/reprints/r...004-04-07b.html). It is
expected that EM64T will be fully compatible with AMD64 in later
revisions. EM64T is apparently based on an earlier specification of
the AMD64 architecture, which AMD had released prior to the actual
launch of the Hammer family of processors."""

> It's ironic to see Intel reverse engineering AMD
> .. something that Intel engineers used to laugh at AMD for doing.

Well they obviously didn't 'reverse engineer', they used published
specifications.

That's 2 for 2, _again_.

Lueko Willms

2004-09-28, 8:55 am

.. Am 27.09.04
schrieb robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests (Robert Wagner)
bei /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in r98hl0dbmscos3tce2sl0bedcud90efdqj@4ax.com
ueber Re: "Goto statement considered superfluous"
[color=darkred]

RW> Chuck Stevens' response is definitive.

Sure, he _works_ at Unisys, I only follow it for nostalgia.

RW> I got that impression from this Web page:
RW>
RW> http://www.unisys.com/products/es70...s__solutions/wi
RW> ndows__stan dardization/services.htm

But this clearly speaks only about _migration_ tools, not a
Compiler, and does not mention at all addressing mode.

RW> But here a Unisys manager says the tool is branded Micro Focus:
RW>
RW> http://www.microfocus.com/closeup/v...ue3/partner.asp

Thanks for the pointer. The guy (Brig Campbell from Mission Viejo)
is praising the ES7000 with Windows, but now Unisys offers also Linux
for it...

Anyway, also from that interview I conclude that the Unisys offer
consist of migration tools and migration assistance.

Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.mlwerke.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

"Nach meiner Ansicht besitzt die Presse _das_ _Recht_,
Schriftsteller, Politiker, Komödianten und andere öffentliche
Charaktere zu _beleidigen_. Achtete ich [so einen Angriff gegen mich]
einer Notiz wert, so galt mir in solchen Fällen der Wahlspruch: à
corsaire, corsaire et demi [auf einen Schelmen anderthalben]."
- Karl Marx 17.11.1860 (Herr Vogt, Kapitel XI)

LX-i

2004-09-28, 3:55 pm

Lueko Willms wrote:
>
> Anyway, also from that interview I conclude that the Unisys offer
> consist of migration tools and migration assistance.

Of course - their customers are used to getting a suite of software with
their hardware. :) Wonder if I could get in on any 2200-to-Linux
conversions - that would be pretty

...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chuck Stevens

2004-09-28, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
news:r98hl0dbmscos3tce2sl0bedcud90efdqj@
4ax.com...

>
> Chuck Stevens' response is definitive.

Not necessarily. I don't work on ES7000, though I am in physical proximity
to many who do. I am totally unaware of any COBOL compiler offerings
provided by, or through, Unisys for the ES7000; I believe the basic position
for such things is that, aside from the tools Unisys *does* provide, the
user is expected to obtain whatever he feels appropriate for his
environment, and that includes compilers. Unisys may recommend or suggest
solutions for the customer's environment, but doesn't, so far as I know,
resell such offerings.
> I got that impression from this Web page:
>
>
http://www.unisys.com/products/es70...on/services.htm

The only mention I see of COBOL on this page is the following: "For
applications running COBOL and RPG code, we provide an automated code port
to simply re-host the 'ported' legacy application on the new Windows
platform, with back-end databases either intact or migrated to SQL Server,
Oracle or DB2."

From that statement you have concluded that the COBOL compiler marketed by
Unisys is actually a rebadged Micro Focus offering. Interesting deduction,
that. Could you maybe clarify to us how the cited text leads
incontrovertibly to that conclusion?

> But here a Unisys manager says the tool is branded Micro Focus:
>
> http://www.microfocus.com/closeup/v...ue3/partner.asp

Mentions of "Micro Focus" in this article: (1) "Customers invested
tremendous amounts of money and effort in developing custom applications
with Micro Focus COBOL to specifically address their particular business
processes ..." (2) "It is certainly a major factor for customers with
mainframes. Like most Micro Focus customers, they're ..." (3) "Basically,
any COBOL application is a candidate to migrate with our offering. Often the
motivation to migrate from these platforms is not necessarily driven by
lower TCO but by vendor support. If the application is doing the job then
migration to a Micro Focus Net Express for .NET product enables easy
migration of COBOL applications to the .NET framework ..." and (4) "You'd
be amazed at how fast batch programs run with Micro Focus Net Express on a
32-way ES7000 server with 2.8Ghz Intel processors and 64GB of memory.
Customers are pleasantly shocked!"

Only the third citation mentions a Unisys "offering" relating to COBOL, and
that offering isn't a rebadged Micro Focus product, or a COBOL compiler for
that matter. The "output" of that product appears to be at least
"tailorable" to Micro Focus Net Express, but it's not clear to me that
that's the only possible target for it (that may be the case, but even so,
it's irrelevant to my main point).

How does the cited text lead inexorably to the inescapable conclusion that
Unisys offers a Micro Focus product?

-Chuck Stevens

Robert Wagner

2004-09-28, 3:55 pm

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:35:11 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
> news:r98hl0dbmscos3tce2sl0bedcud90efdqj@
4ax.com...
>
[color=darkred]
>The only mention I see of COBOL on this page is the following: "For
>applications running COBOL and RPG code, we provide an automated code port
>to simply re-host the 'ported' legacy application on the new Windows
>platform, with back-end databases either intact or migrated to SQL Server,
>Oracle or DB2."
>
>From that statement you have concluded that the COBOL compiler marketed by
>Unisys is actually a rebadged Micro Focus offering. Interesting deduction,
>that. Could you maybe clarify to us how the cited text leads
>incontrovertibly to that conclusion?

"Re-host" says there is a Cobol compiler available. On a quick
reading, I thought "we provide" referred to that compiler.

[color=darkred]
>How does the cited text lead inexorably to the inescapable conclusion that
>Unisys offers a Micro Focus product?

I cited that as evidence Unisys does NOT fly its flag over the
compiler. "Unisys .. says the [compiler] is .. Micro Focus." In other
words, if you want one, call Micro Focus.

Michael Wojcik

2004-09-28, 3:55 pm

In article <cjc3rv$1asc$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> writes:
>
> (4) "You'd
> be amazed at how fast batch programs run with Micro Focus Net Express on a
> 32-way ES7000 server with 2.8Ghz Intel processors and 64GB of memory.
> Customers are pleasantly shocked!"

Heh. I've been doing some of that benchmarking. Yeah, it's fast.

We've actually been pleasantly surprised at how well Windows 2003
Data Center and the Intel CPUs were scaling; older versions of both
had relatively poor SMP factors. Microsoft, Intel, and Unisys all
seem to have done a good job here.

Of course, not all applications can make use of those 32 processors.

Now I must hie myself off to alt.folklore.computers to reminisce
about the days when one CPU was a luxury. ("CPU? In my day, we
were lucky if we had an ALU! And 64 *bits* of memory was more than
we common folk could afford! And ...")

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Pocket #9: A complete "artificial glen" with rocks, and artificial moon,
and forester's station. Excellent for achieving the effect of the
sublime without going out-of-doors. -- Joe Green

Robert Wagner

2004-10-02, 8:55 am

Lueko Willms

2004-10-02, 8:55 am

Chuck Stevens

2004-10-02, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-10-02, 3:55 pm

Sponsored Links