Home > Archive > Cobol > March 2005 > Learning COBOL
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]
|
|
| kdbarrett@gmail.com 2005-03-12, 8:55 am |
| I need to learn COBOL for a conversion project coming up later this
year. I have Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL running, but it's too...
Windows-ish, if you get my drift. There won't be any gui on this
project. Any suggestions on how I can best emulate that? The project
will also involve a DB2 database. I have a Linux box (Mandrake 10)
with DB2 running on it, but I can't find any COBOL compilers for Linux.
Any suggestions? Thanks!
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-03-12, 8:55 am |
| .. On 11.03.05
wrote kdbarrett@gmail.com (kdbarrett)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 1110592503.725799.257650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
about Re: Learning COBOL
k> I worked with PowerCobol a little bit, and it's very Visual
k> Studio-like and I found it hard to get at the code itself.
As explained before, leave PowerCOBOL aside, that is meant to build
interactive GUI forms, so not what you need, resp. want.
Call the program "Programming Staff", that is your development
center.
If you insist, you could also build your own little scripts to run
the compiler and linker, but doing that interactively with the tools
WinCob, WinLink etc is easier.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Belehrung findet man öfter in der Welt als Trost. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
|
| kdbarrett@gmail.com wrote:
> I need to learn COBOL for a conversion project coming up later this
> year. I have Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL running, but it's too...
> Windows-ish, if you get my drift. There won't be any gui on this
> project. Any suggestions on how I can best emulate that?
If you've got PowerCOBOL, you've got a compiler. Look for something
called "Programming Staff" - it's a terrible name, but it's the
development environment. Using it, you can write console-based programs
to your hearts content.
> The project
> will also involve a DB2 database. I have a Linux box (Mandrake 10)
> with DB2 running on it, but I can't find any COBOL compilers for Linux.
Assuming the computers are networked, you can access the DB2 database
from the Windows application - just set up ODBC for them. If you don't
know how to do that, Google is your friend. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 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++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Richard 2005-03-12, 3:55 pm |
| > the easiest path is Fujitsu. The price is $2,500.
Read the message, Robert:
OpenCobol, tinyCobol are free and suitable for learning Cobol. Kobol
is cheap and suitable for learning Cobol.
[color=darkred]
> That means he doesn't need SP/2 or web-based.
SP/2 on Unix/Linux is character based - not a GRAPHICAL User Interface,
but a Text User Interface. It runs on console, over telnet or ssh.
My comment is a warning (note the 'but'): 'he _would_ need to use a
front end' if he used Fujitsu for Linux because this does not support
Screen-Section or X/Open ACCEPT/DISPLAY AT. It only has '85 ANSI
Accept/Display which is unsuitable for a user interface.
> That means he does need a SQL precompiler. Open, Tiny or
> Kobol might be coaxed to work with OpenESQL but the easiest
> path is Fujitsu.
You have ASSumed that there is a linkage between the project and Linux.
There is a link between DB2 and no-GUI and the project, but he was not
asking for a compiler to implement the project, just one to learn
Cobol. OpenCobol or Kobol may be entirely suitable for that, $2500 is
probably not suitable.
| |
| HeyBub 2005-03-12, 8:55 pm |
| kdbarrett@gmail.com wrote:
> I need to learn COBOL for a conversion project coming up later this
> year. I have Fujitsu's PowerCOBOL running, but it's too...
> Windows-ish, if you get my drift.
No, I don't.
PowerCOBOL is Fujitsu's COBOL with GUI enhancements. Don't use the
enhancements.
> There won't be any gui on this
> project. Any suggestions on how I can best emulate that?
Emulate a non-GUI environment? Uh,.... No, I'm completely stumped.
> The project
> will also involve a DB2 database. I have a Linux box (Mandrake 10)
> with DB2 running on it, but I can't find any COBOL compilers for
> Linux. Any suggestions? Thanks!
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-03-12, 8:55 pm |
|
"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9Sjeov4PflB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
> . On 11.03.05
> wrote kdbarrett@gmail.com (kdbarrett)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in 1110592503.725799.257650@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> about Re: Learning COBOL
>
>
> k> I worked with PowerCobol a little bit, and it's very Visual
> k> Studio-like and I found it hard to get at the code itself.
>
> As explained before, leave PowerCOBOL aside, that is meant to build
> interactive GUI forms, so not what you need, resp. want.
>
A slight correction, Leuko. PowerCOBOL is not "meant to build
interactive GUI forms" ; that is PowerForms. PowerCOBOL CAN be used to
build interactive GUI forms, but it is also a very useful "quick build " GUI
application tool. I have found it useful as a good introduction to the
concepts of OO and components, and still use it for component development,
although I am moving more to other languages because of the inconvenience of
the COBOL runtime.
> Call the program "Programming Staff", that is your development
> center.
>
Yes, Programming Staff is a comparatively primitive (you could argue that
that improves its ease of use) but useful Manager for projects.
> If you insist, you could also build your own little scripts to run
> the compiler and linker, but doing that interactively with the tools
> WinCob, WinLink etc is easier.
>
Do you think so? I have never liked manually activating the compiler and
linker, and don't do it.. It smacks too much of JCL in a mainframe
environment. I'm very happy to let the Project Manager (Programming Staff)
create and maintain Make files that do it all for me. One click, and it's
done. There is no advantage in compiling and NOT linking, if it is error
free. For modular systems which I group as projects, the Project Manager is
an extremely useful tool that will automatically compile whatever NEEDS
re-compiling if I change a module. The Make files automatically understand
the dependencies in my project without any interference from me.
We all have our individual preferences and ways of working. It is unwise to
recommend a personal favourite as the way for others. The best we can do
here is explain options...
Pete
| |
| Lueko Willms 2005-03-14, 3:55 am |
| .. On 13.03.05
wrote dashwood@enternet.co.nz (Pete Dashwood)
on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in 39hasaF62tkheU1@individual.net
about Re: Learning COBOL
PD> We all have our individual preferences and ways of working. It is
PD> unwise to recommend a personal favourite as the way for others. The
PD> best we can do here is explain options...
Thanks for explaining yours ... as I said several times before, it
is only quite recently that I have returned to COBOL and I have
started using this Fujitsu thing. But I did not much more than play
around with it.
[color=darkred]
PD> Yes, Programming Staff is a comparatively primitive (you could argue
PD> that that improves its ease of use) but useful Manager for projects.
[color=darkred]
PD> Do you think so?
Well, with this Fujitsu thing I never did anyway else.
PD> I have never liked manually activating the compiler
PD> and linker, and don't do it.. It smacks too much of JCL in a
PD> mainframe environment. I'm very happy to let the Project Manager
PD> (Programming Staff) create and maintain Make files that do it all for
PD> me. One click, and it's done.
I had opened the "Project" menu, but could not find anything but
"open", but nothing like "new", so I abandoned it. Now I found out
that behind the "open" is also a "not found, so maybe you want to
create a new one?" option.
Anyway, I did not create real projects in COBOL, only small example
and test programs.
PD> There is no advantage in compiling and NOT linking,
PD> if it is error free.
IF. A very big IF.
What purpose of calling the linker when the program doesn't compile
error-free?
PD> For modular systems which I group as projects, the Project Manager
PD> is an extremely useful tool that will automatically compile
PD> whatever NEEDS re-compiling if I change a module.
PD> The Make files automatically understand the dependencies in
PD> my project without any interference from me.
Well, after you pushed me to it, I will try it for my next venture
into COBOL.
PD> We all have our individual preferences and ways of working. It is
PD> unwise to recommend a personal favourite as the way for others. The
PD> best we can do here is explain options...
Which can change the way for others.
Yours,
Lüko Willms http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --
Die Wörter-Welt. -G.C.Lichtenberg
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-03-14, 8:55 am |
|
"Lueko Willms" <l.willms@jpberlin.de> wrote in message
news:9Snksdd9flB@jpberlin-l.willms.jpberlin.de...
> . On 13.03.05
> wrote dashwood@enternet.co.nz (Pete Dashwood)
> on /COMP/LANG/COBOL
> in 39hasaF62tkheU1@individual.net
> about Re: Learning COBOL
>
>
> PD> We all have our individual preferences and ways of working. It is
> PD> unwise to recommend a personal favourite as the way for others. The
> PD> best we can do here is explain options...
>
> Thanks for explaining yours ... as I said several times before, it
> is only quite recently that I have returned to COBOL and I have
> started using this Fujitsu thing. But I did not much more than play
> around with it.
>
>
>
> PD> Yes, Programming Staff is a comparatively primitive (you could argue
> PD> that that improves its ease of use) but useful Manager for projects.
>
>
> PD> Do you think so?
>
> Well, with this Fujitsu thing I never did anyway else.
>
>
> PD> I have never liked manually activating the compiler
> PD> and linker, and don't do it.. It smacks too much of JCL in a
> PD> mainframe environment. I'm very happy to let the Project Manager
> PD> (Programming Staff) create and maintain Make files that do it all for
> PD> me. One click, and it's done.
>
> I had opened the "Project" menu, but could not find anything but
> "open", but nothing like "new", so I abandoned it. Now I found out
> that behind the "open" is also a "not found, so maybe you want to
> create a new one?" option.
>
> Anyway, I did not create real projects in COBOL, only small example
> and test programs.
>
>
> PD> There is no advantage in compiling and NOT linking,
> PD> if it is error free.
>
> IF. A very big IF.
Depends who's writing it...:-)
>
> What purpose of calling the linker when the program doesn't compile
> error-free?
>
If there are serious errors the Linker won't be called. Get to know the
project Manager a bit better.
> PD> For modular systems which I group as projects, the Project Manager
> PD> is an extremely useful tool that will automatically compile
> PD> whatever NEEDS re-compiling if I change a module.
> PD> The Make files automatically understand the dependencies in
> PD> my project without any interference from me.
>
> Well, after you pushed me to it, I will try it for my next venture
> into COBOL.
>
Please. I don't push anybody here. I'm not on commission and I really don't
care what people do, as long as they make decisons on complete information
and are aware of THEIR options...
In this case, it looked like some important information on use of the
Fujitsu environment had been missed. That's why I posted.
> PD> We all have our individual preferences and ways of working. It is
> PD> unwise to recommend a personal favourite as the way for others. The
> PD> best we can do here is explain options...
>
> Which can change the way for others.
>
But it is THEIR decision; not yours or mine... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> If there are serious errors the Linker won't be called. Get to know the
> project Manager a bit better.
Does version 3 have a project manager? I've just used it with version 5.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 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++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-03-15, 3:55 pm |
| LX-i wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
>
> Does version 3 have a project manager? I've just used it with version 5.
>
>
Yes. In fact, I think it unchanged in version 5.
Donald
|
|
|
|
|