The Maximum Beta release of COBOL Millennium Edition

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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 a
n
> 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 h
ave
> 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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.