Home > Archive > Cobol > July 2004 > IBM, DB2, and precompiler (was: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
IBM, DB2, and precompiler (was: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
|
|
| William M. Klein 2004-07-19, 8:55 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40fb311e.16205506@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> By discontinuing the precompiler, IBM has eliminated competition to their
Cobol
> compiler.
>
Robert,
Can you point to some evidence that IBM has "discontinued" (or is
discontinuing) its DB2 precompiler? It is making (has made) it non-necessary,
but I don't think I have seen ANY evidence that it is being discontinued. I
could have missed this, but I don't think so.
FYI (semi-related)
IBM *has* discontinued supplying the OS/VS COBOL version of the CICS
precompiler (translator) - but even there (where it is also not required) they
do still provide a translator for currently supported COBOL compilers.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-20, 3:55 am |
| "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40fb311e.16205506@news.optonline.net...
><snip>
>Cobol
>
>Robert,
> Can you point to some evidence that IBM has "discontinued" (or is
>discontinuing) its DB2 precompiler? It is making (has made) it non-necessary,
>but I don't think I have seen ANY evidence that it is being discontinued. I
>could have missed this, but I don't think so.
I just assumed they had. I'll bet they won't upgrade it to the 2003 standard.
Why should they spend money on an unnecessary product?
| |
| Richard 2004-07-20, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
> I just assumed they had. I'll bet they won't upgrade it to the 2003 standard.
> Why should they spend money on an unnecessary product?
Why do you think that IBM view this as 'unnecessary' ? Do they think
that PC clients using MF Cobol are 'unnecessary' ? Or indeed that
users of any language running on PC are 'unnecessary' ?
Should _all_ DB/2 users only run z/OS programs ?
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-20, 3:55 pm |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>Why do you think that IBM view this as 'unnecessary' ? Do they think
>that PC clients using MF Cobol are 'unnecessary' ? Or indeed that
>users of any language running on PC are 'unnecessary' ?
>
>Should _all_ DB/2 users only run z/OS programs ?
It is obvious that IBM compilers share a common front-end. Enterprise Cobol for
zOS and Cobol Set for AIX already have integrated SQL; VisualAge for Windows is
very likely to have it on the next release (it already has integrated CICS). How
long will IBM support other Cobol compilers?
On that topic, I looked at the four leading Open Source databases and found only
MaxDB has precompilers for any language, and Cobol isn't one of them. What are
we Cobol programmers to do?
http://www.geocities.com/mailsoftware42/db/
| |
| Richard 2004-07-20, 8:55 pm |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
[color=darkred]
> It is obvious that IBM compilers share a common front-end. Enterprise Cobol for
> zOS and Cobol Set for AIX already have integrated SQL; VisualAge for Windows is
> very likely to have it on the next release (it already has integrated CICS). How
> long will IBM support other Cobol compilers?
They are not 'supporting other compilers', they are supporting use of
their DB2 database.
> On that topic, I looked at the four leading Open Source databases and found only
> MaxDB has precompilers for any language,
That certainly is _not_ true (yet again). I use ecpg which is
PostgreSQL's preprocessor for C/C++ (it is listed on the page you
referenced). Perl, Python, PHP do not require pre-processing as they
use DB style accessing which is standardised for all.
And, of course, anything that accesses ODBC, or unixODBC, can use
MySQL, PostgreSQL, or many others. This includes Fujitsu NetCobol for
Linux, MicroFocus, CobolScript, Ruby, and many you maynot have heard
of.
> http://www.microfocus.com/mfnewsletter/20040701_008.asp
> and Cobol isn't one of them. What are we Cobol programmers to do?
Use Fujitsu ?
Use CLI/ODBC ?
"""CLI/ODBC is an SQL application programming interface that can be
called by your database applications. It passes dynamic SQL statements
as database function calls. Unlike embedded SQL it does not require
host variables or a precompiler."""
Use PostISAM (if/when developed)?
""PostISAM is an ISAM wrapper for libpq that generates SQL statements
on the fly from traditional ISAM (read, write, start) statements.
PostgreSQL could then be used as a file system for legacy COBOL
applications.
PostISAM is written in STL and is designed to be portable to different
COBOL compilers. Unlike Embedded SQL, PostISAM will allow PostgreSQL
to be a drop in replacement for a traditional ISAM file system.
PostISAM can be used with any compiler that:
1. Can call C routines in external libraries
2. Use a user provided ISAM file system (most commercial COBOL
implementations allow this)."""
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-07-21, 8:55 pm |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
> I use ecpg which is
>PostgreSQL's preprocessor for C/C++ (it is listed on the page you
>referenced). Perl, Python, PHP do not require pre-processing as they
>use DB style accessing which is standardised for all.
>
>And, of course, anything that accesses ODBC, or unixODBC, can use
>MySQL, PostgreSQL, or many others. This includes Fujitsu NetCobol for
>Linux, MicroFocus, CobolScript, Ruby, and many you maynot have heard
>of.
>
>
>
>Use Fujitsu ?
>
>Use CLI/ODBC ?
>
>"""CLI/ODBC is an SQL application programming interface that can be
>called by your database applications. It passes dynamic SQL statements
>as database function calls. Unlike embedded SQL it does not require
>host variables or a precompiler."""
>
>Use PostISAM (if/when developed)?
This good and hard to find information. Thank you for posting it.
| |
| Richard 2004-07-22, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
> This good and hard to find information. Thank you for posting it.
5 minutes with Google.
| |
| Frederico Fonseca 2004-07-22, 3:55 am |
| On 21 Jul 2004 19:55:57 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>5 minutes with Google.
But that's a LOT of work for some..
Frederico Fonseca
ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com
|
|
|
|
|