Home > Archive > Cobol > December 2006 > The Maximum Beta release of COBOL Millennium Edition
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 |
The Maximum Beta release of COBOL Millennium Edition
|
|
| Mark Wallace 2006-11-19, 6:55 pm |
|
Many people are still unaware of the COBOL '99 project (
http://mwallace.net/school/theory/cobol_99.htm ), which was conducted by
an unnamed university in Birmingham and myself, but the new COBOL
Millennium Edition really needs the support of COBOL users and
aficionados around the world.
The IDE is currently slightly further on than the beta-testing phase (we
have chosen to call this the "maximum beta", or "betamax" phase), and
would appreciate comments and suggestions from COBOL users.
The betamax COBOL Millennium Edition is available for download at:
http://mwallace.net/progs/COBOL_ME_Setup.exe .
Give it a try. Rip it apart. Tell us what's missing.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-11-19, 9:55 pm |
|
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:ejqr62$l3i$1@aioe.server.aioe.org...
>
> Many people are still unaware of the COBOL '99 project (
> http://mwallace.net/school/theory/cobol_99.htm ), which was conducted by
> an unnamed university in Birmingham and myself, but the new COBOL
> Millennium Edition really needs the support of COBOL users and aficionados
> around the world.
>
Why?
> The IDE is currently slightly further on than the beta-testing phase (we
> have chosen to call this the "maximum beta", or "betamax" phase), and
> would appreciate comments and suggestions from COBOL users.
>
> The betamax COBOL Millennium Edition is available for download at:
> http://mwallace.net/progs/COBOL_ME_Setup.exe .
>
> Give it a try. Rip it apart. Tell us what's missing.
It certainly made me smile... (even if some of the constructs have been
around as long as COBOL....), thanks.
I hope you got a grant for this... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Mark Wallace 2006-11-20, 6:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> wrote in message
> news:ejqr62$l3i$1@aioe.server.aioe.org...
>
> Why?
Sorry, but I don't have that response in an 88 line, so I can't answer it.
>
> It certainly made me smile... (even if some of the constructs have been
> around as long as COBOL....), thanks.
>
> I hope you got a grant for this... :-)
The "G" word wasn't mentioned, but the "F" word certainly was.
| |
| Alistair 2006-11-20, 6:55 pm |
|
Mark Wallace wrote:
> Many people are still unaware of the COBOL '99 project (
> http://mwallace.net/school/theory/cobol_99.htm ), which was conducted by
> an unnamed university in Birmingham and myself, but the new COBOL
> Millennium Edition really needs the support of COBOL users and
> aficionados around the world.
>
> The IDE is currently slightly further on than the beta-testing phase (we
> have chosen to call this the "maximum beta", or "betamax" phase), and
> would appreciate comments and suggestions from COBOL users.
>
> The betamax COBOL Millennium Edition is available for download at:
> http://mwallace.net/progs/COBOL_ME_Setup.exe .
>
> Give it a try. Rip it apart. Tell us what's missing.
I'm gonna wait until the HD-Bluray-PS4 version is available.
| |
| Mark Wallace 2006-11-20, 6:55 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
> Mark Wallace wrote:
>
> I'm gonna wait until the HD-Bluray-PS4 version is available.
Might be a while, I'm afraid. We've already accepted contracts to
produce the Java Pointless JUM (Just On Methadone) and the C-- MDB
(figure it out for yourself) compilers, so our books are pretty full.
Mark Wallace
Underdog and Keyboard Slave
Robson Eccentric
| |
| William M. Klein 2006-12-11, 6:56 pm |
| Out of curiosity, what do you think this project will offer that the current
"OpenCOBOL" project won't?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:ejqr62$l3i$1@aioe.server.aioe.org...
>
> Many people are still unaware of the COBOL '99 project (
> http://mwallace.net/school/theory/cobol_99.htm ), which was conducted by an
> unnamed university in Birmingham and myself, but the new COBOL Millennium
> Edition really needs the support of COBOL users and aficionados around the
> world.
>
> The IDE is currently slightly further on than the beta-testing phase (we have
> chosen to call this the "maximum beta", or "betamax" phase), and would
> appreciate comments and suggestions from COBOL users.
>
> The betamax COBOL Millennium Edition is available for download at:
> http://mwallace.net/progs/COBOL_ME_Setup.exe .
>
> Give it a try. Rip it apart. Tell us what's missing.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-12-11, 6:56 pm |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:CiHdh.313469$tl2.170643@fe10.news.easynews.com...
> Out of curiosity, what do you think this project will offer that the
> current "OpenCOBOL" project won't?
>
A good laugh, for starters... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Mark Wallace 2006-12-11, 6:56 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:CiHdh.313469$tl2.170643@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>
> A good laugh, for starters... :-)
I am absolutely disgusted that you find anything about COBOL laughable.
William's question is a perfectly valid one, and his concerns are well
founded: OpenCOBOL suffers from the same problem that all other
programming and development languages suffer from, in that it is only
after a programmer, developer, or software engineer has written a
program that things start to go wrong.
The program without bugs has never been written -- and bug fixing can be
a lengthy and expensive business.
COBOL '99 addressed this problem directly, by making it impossible for
programmers, developers, and software engineers to open files -- after
all, without a file to write their programs into, what damage can they do?
Not one bug has ever been reported for a COBOL '99 program.
We are, I think justifiably, proud of that record.
COBOL ME approaches the objective from a slightly more oblique
direction, by following the excellent productiveness-destroying methods
used within Adobe products. Only known and trusted users can use the
suite, and, as with most Adobe products, it is still impossible to
create new files.
However, like Adobe, we have come to the conclusion that allowing the
use of templates is a safe idea, so long as it is carefully controlled,
and "unsafe" users are prevented from using templates that could be
dangerous in their hands.
Although COBOL ME is still only in the beta-testing phase, and many
features have not yet been implemented, it has been distributed widely
for testing -- and we have not received a single report of problems
caused by programs created with COBOL ME.
I challenge OpenCOBOL to even try to attempt to have a go at matching
that record.
| |
| Roger While 2006-12-11, 6:56 pm |
|
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:elbbkt$gck$1@aioe.org...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I am absolutely disgusted that you find anything about COBOL laughable.
>
> William's question is a perfectly valid one, and his concerns are well
> founded: OpenCOBOL suffers from the same problem that all other
> programming and development languages suffer from, in that it is only
> after a programmer, developer, or software engineer has written a program
> that things start to go wrong.
>
> The program without bugs has never been written -- and bug fixing can be a
> lengthy and expensive business.
>
> COBOL '99 addressed this problem directly, by making it impossible for
> programmers, developers, and software engineers to open files -- after
> all, without a file to write their programs into, what damage can they do?
>
> Not one bug has ever been reported for a COBOL '99 program.
>
Well, you have one now :-)
On Win XP, Starting COBOL ME results in -
"Component TABCTL32.OCX or one of its dependencies not
correctly registered : a file is missing or invalid"
And where are your Unix/Linux ports ?
> We are, I think justifiably, proud of that record.
>
> COBOL ME approaches the objective from a slightly more oblique direction,
> by following the excellent productiveness-destroying methods used within
> Adobe products. Only known and trusted users can use the suite, and, as
> with most Adobe products, it is still impossible to create new files.
>
> However, like Adobe, we have come to the conclusion that allowing the use
> of templates is a safe idea, so long as it is carefully controlled, and
> "unsafe" users are prevented from using templates that could be dangerous
> in their hands.
>
> Although COBOL ME is still only in the beta-testing phase, and many
> features have not yet been implemented, it has been distributed widely for
> testing -- and we have not received a single report of problems caused by
> programs created with COBOL ME.
>
> I challenge OpenCOBOL to even try to attempt to have a go at matching that
> record.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-12-11, 6:56 pm |
|
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:elbbkt$gck$1@aioe.org...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I am absolutely disgusted that you find anything about COBOL laughable.
>
> William's question is a perfectly valid one, and his concerns are well
> founded: OpenCOBOL suffers from the same problem that all other
> programming and development languages suffer from, in that it is only
> after a programmer, developer, or software engineer has written a program
> that things start to go wrong.
>
> The program without bugs has never been written -- and bug fixing can be a
> lengthy and expensive business.
>
> COBOL '99 addressed this problem directly, by making it impossible for
> programmers, developers, and software engineers to open files -- after
> all, without a file to write their programs into, what damage can they do?
>
> Not one bug has ever been reported for a COBOL '99 program.
>
> We are, I think justifiably, proud of that record.
>
> COBOL ME approaches the objective from a slightly more oblique direction,
> by following the excellent productiveness-destroying methods used within
> Adobe products. Only known and trusted users can use the suite, and, as
> with most Adobe products, it is still impossible to create new files.
>
> However, like Adobe, we have come to the conclusion that allowing the use
> of templates is a safe idea, so long as it is carefully controlled, and
> "unsafe" users are prevented from using templates that could be dangerous
> in their hands.
>
> Although COBOL ME is still only in the beta-testing phase, and many
> features have not yet been implemented, it has been distributed widely for
> testing -- and we have not received a single report of problems caused by
> programs created with COBOL ME.
>
> I challenge OpenCOBOL to even try to attempt to have a go at matching that
> record.
LOL!
Pete.
| |
| Mark Wallace 2006-12-13, 4:06 pm |
| Roger While wrote:
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:elbbkt$gck$1@aioe.org...
>
> Well, you have one now :-)
> On Win XP, Starting COBOL ME results in -
> "Component TABCTL32.OCX or one of its dependencies not
> correctly registered : a file is missing or invalid"
You're missing the tab control? (It's used for "pages" with tabs at the
top, to let you click other "pages" active).
Get a new one from here:
http://www.ascentive.com/support/ne...me=TABCTL32.OCX
It may be that you need to get the VB runtimes, if you have a newish
machine. http://nonags.com/nonags/menu.html is the best place for stuff
like that (I think the runtime dlls are in their "essentials" section).
> And where are your Unix/Linux ports ?
I'm in the Netherlands, so I'm surrounded by ports; I don't need any
more, thanks.
| |
| Roger While 2006-12-13, 4:06 pm |
|
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:elo9ck$2bs$1@aioe.org...
> Roger While wrote:
>
> You're missing the tab control? (It's used for "pages" with tabs at the
> top, to let you click other "pages" active).
> Get a new one from here:
> http://www.ascentive.com/support/ne...me=TABCTL32.OCX
Sorry, external controls are not allowed here.
>
> It may be that you need to get the VB runtimes, if you have a newish
> machine. http://nonags.com/nonags/menu.html is the best place for stuff
> like that (I think the runtime dlls are in their "essentials" section).
>
Really, I did not know that. But it is moot.
>
>
> I'm in the Netherlands, so I'm surrounded by ports; I don't need any more,
> thanks.
Then one or two more would nor hurt :-)
Roger
| |
| Mark Wallace 2006-12-14, 7:55 am |
| Roger While wrote:
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallace@dse.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:elo9ck$2bs$1@aioe.org...
>
> Sorry, external controls are not allowed here.
Yikes! Nice place! Is the bread and water they serve in the canteen at
least fresh?
The tab control is pure MS, anyway, so shouldn't be a problem. If I get
the chance, I'll re-bundle the COBOL ME installer with all its
dependencies. That should get past the problem.
We'll have you programming with COBOL ME in no time at all!
(No, really, I mean "no time at all"!)
>
> Really, I did not know that. But it is moot.
Aha! You must be of US-ish persuasion, from where "moot" is used like
"table", and "table" is used like "moot"!
And you had a chilli dog last Friday, your wife's name is Barbara, and
your last vacation was to Wisconsin!
We British are masters of deduction, you know...
>
> Then one or two more would nor hurt :-)
That would be dependent on the height they are dropped from.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-12-14, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:51:35 +0100, Mark Wallace <mwallace@dse.nl>
wrote:
>
>Aha! You must be of US-ish persuasion, from where "moot" is used like
>"table", and "table" is used like "moot"!
So I looked it up in the compact OED to find out what the UK-ish
persuasion was:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/moot?view=uk
moot
• adjective subject to debate or uncertainty: a moot point.
• verb put forward for discussion.
• noun 1 (in Anglo-Saxon and medieval England) a legislative or
judicial assembly. 2 Law a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical
case as an academic exercise.
— ORIGIN Old English, assembly or meeting; related to MEET1.
It's not obvious to me what the difference is.
| |
| Mark Wallace 2006-12-15, 7:55 am |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:51:35 +0100, Mark Wallace <mwallace@dse.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
> So I looked it up in the compact OED to find out what the UK-ish
> persuasion was:
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/moot?view=uk
> moot
>
> • adjective subject to debate or uncertainty: a moot point.
>
> • verb put forward for discussion.
>
> • noun 1 (in Anglo-Saxon and medieval England) a legislative or
> judicial assembly. 2 Law a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical
> case as an academic exercise.
>
> — ORIGIN Old English, assembly or meeting; related to MEET1.
>
> It's not obvious to me what the difference is.
"Moot" is often used in the US as its opposite (which would be "table",
in the UK).
I've often heard US-type people say "the point is moot", when they mean
that there's no point discussing it, rather than meaning that it should
be discussed.
Similarly, "tabling" an idea in the US often means opening it for
discussion, rather than leaving it for the next meeting.
It's all very confusing, really, but it's a moot point -- or not,
depending on your interpretation.
| |
| Clark F Morris 2006-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:00:13 +0100, Mark Wallace <mwallace@dse.nl>
wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
>"Moot" is often used in the US as its opposite (which would be "table",
>in the UK).
>
>I've often heard US-type people say "the point is moot", when they mean
>that there's no point discussing it, rather than meaning that it should
>be discussed.
>
>Similarly, "tabling" an idea in the US often means opening it for
>discussion, rather than leaving it for the next meeting.
As a US citizen living in Canada and as someone who was used to the US
interpretation of Roberts Rules of Order, I was surprised to hear
tabling used as meaning opening for discussion such as the bill was
tabled in Parliament for first reading rather than postponing to a
future meeting.
>
>It's all very confusing, really, but it's a moot point -- or not,
>depending on your interpretation.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-12-15, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:00:13 +0100, Mark Wallace <mwallace@dse.nl>
wrote:
>I've often heard US-type people say "the point is moot", when they mean
>that there's no point discussing it, rather than meaning that it should
>be discussed.
That's how I use it. (I'm a US-type person)
>Similarly, "tabling" an idea in the US often means opening it for
>discussion, rather than leaving it for the next meeting.
I've was unfamiliar with former, having always used the latter
definition.
|
|
|
|
|