diff between cobol1 & cobol3

Can anyone out there point out the major differences in COBOL I and
COBOL III to me?  I'm just learning COBOL and I'm kind of 
about
this right now.

In article <45639727-e1dc-42eb-8938-58786661fff8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m>,
nishu  <nishantchaturvedi@gmail.com> wrote:
>Can anyone out there point out the major differences in COBOL I and
>COBOL III to me?  I'm just learning COBOL and I'm kind of 
>about
>this right now.

I've been working with COBOL for a few decades now and I think the only
thing I can point out is that I believe one of them exists and one of them
doesn't.

DD

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fjb6fo$g9h$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article
<45639727-e1dc-42eb-8938-58786661fff8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> nishu  <nishantchaturvedi@gmail.com> wrote: 
>
> I've been working with COBOL for a few decades now and I think the only
> thing I can point out is that I believe one of them exists and one of them
> doesn't.

It is not clear to me that either I or III exists; but rather the
designations were contrived to show a relation between II, which
does exist in one popular environment, and the predecessor and
successor implementations for that same environment.

In any case, one "just learning COBOL" might be well-advised
to learn COBOL MCMLXXXV, the intrinsic functions added in
MCMLXXXIX, and the changes introduced in COBOL MMII.

In article <13licj0hkh6b753@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fjb6fo$g9h$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 
><45639727-e1dc-42eb-8938-58786661fff8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 
>
>It is not clear to me that either I or III exists; but rather the
>designations were contrived to show a relation between II, which
>does exist in one popular environment, and the predecessor and
>successor implementations for that same environment.

It might be, perhaps, that such a contrivance was attempted... such
foolishments!  *Everyone* knows that there was no 'COBOL II'; there *was*
a COBOLII... variants of which appear to include 'cobolii', pronounced as
'koh-bohl-ee' or 'koh-bohl-ai-ai' (the 'ai' being pronounced in a slightly
diphthonic manner reminiscent of exclamations found in Spanish
comic-strips, eg 'El Diablo de Muerte, el bandito grande?  Ai!  Ai!
Vamenos rapido!').

>In any case, one "just learning COBOL" might be well-advised
>to learn COBOL MCMLXXXV, the intrinsic functions added in
>MCMLXXXIX, and the changes introduced in COBOL MMII.

Durned kids and their newfangled Roman numerals... since when did folks
become 'too good' for scratch-marks on some reindeer-antler?

DD

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:40:39 -0800 (PST), nishu
<nishantchaturvedi@gmail.com> wrote:

>Can anyone out there point out the major differences in COBOL I and
>COBOL III to me?  I'm just learning COBOL and I'm kind of 
>about this right now.

I've never heard of either of them.

But I've been programming CoBOL since 1969, with various computer
systems.    Once, when I was working on a VAX, I didn't get a job
because I didn't have "CoBOL II" experience.    Later on I found out
that CoBOL II was the same ANSI CoBOL that I was using - except that
name was used by IBM.

CoBOL, like other languages, has evolved some over the years.   But
not much.  (Unless you are asking about OO CoBOL).

How and where are you "learning COBOL"?

If you are learning IBM mainframe-specific COBOL, then the chances are that 
you
are asking for the differences between their products "OS/VS COBOL" and
"Enterprise COBOL".

The former hasn't been supported by IBM for over a decade - and it conformed
 to
the 1968 and 1974 ANSI Standards.  The latter is a currently supported IBM
product and conforms to the 1985 ANSI Standard - with its Amendments.  Both 
have
many IBM extensions (but not the same extensions).

For detailed information on the differences between these two products (alon
g
with the "in-between" product of VS COBOL II), see the IBM migration guide a
t:

[url]http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IGY3MG32/CCONTENTS[/url
]

Again, depending on how you are learning COBOL and whether or not you actual
ly
want to be limited to IBM mainframe COBOL or not, some or none of this
information may be useful.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"nishu" <nishantchaturvedi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45639727-e1dc-42eb-8938-58786661fff8@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Can anyone out there point out the major differences in COBOL I and
> COBOL III to me?  I'm just learning COBOL and I'm kind of 
> about
> this right now.

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:40:39 -0800 (PST), nishu <nishantchaturvedi@gmail.com>
 wrote:

>Can anyone out there point out the major differences in COBOL I and
>COBOL III to me?  I'm just learning COBOL and I'm kind of 
>about
>this right now.

"COBOLIA est omnis divisa in partes tres." Who could forget the famous openi
ng line from
Bellum Cobolicum?

There are significant differences between Roman Cobol I, II and III versus m
odern Cobol
74, 85 and 02. Roman computers could not represent ZERO, their lowest value 
was I. This
explains why Cobol subscipts begin with (1) whereas modern languages begin w
ith (0). The
statement PERMOVO MUGIO-PENDO UT FOO (move low-values to foo) filled the are
a with binary
Is rather than binary zeros. Arithmetic statements producing a value of zero
 where
considered an error, which had to be handled, for example:

PERMOVO X UT FOO
DEMO X EX FOO
IN AMPLITUDO ERRORIS TRACTARE ERRORIS-TRACTO.
(subtract 10 from foo on size error perform error-handler)

The Roman Standards Committee (workgroup JIV) did not regard ZERO as an inte
ger that could
be stored in memory but rather as the limit of 1/x as x approached infinity.
 A modern
vestige of this belief is the prohibition against division by zero. x/0 = in
finity is a
simple algebraic restatement of 1/infinity = 0.  Cobol II was developed duri
ng the reign
of  Emperor Dodi  Schrickerae, who was secretely in league with  Interpopulu
s Res
Aparatus.

Cobol I and II were regarded as Real Cobol. Cobol III, which was widely igno
red, was
developed after the fall of Rome by barbarians who worshiped Res Venia (obje
ct oriented).
It was later revealed that the barbarians were actually Communists.

Hope this helps.

However, the Roman COBOL committee is still working on their next revision a
nd
expect to have it out any decade now.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
 news:dokjl31ffeqgd95hbp2bfsq2svcdkrg3lb@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:40:39 -0800 (PST), nishu <nishantchaturvedi@gmail.co
m>
> wrote:
> 
>
> "COBOLIA est omnis divisa in partes tres." Who could forget the famous ope
ning
> line from
> Bellum Cobolicum?
>
> There are significant differences between Roman Cobol I, II and III versus
> modern Cobol
> 74, 85 and 02. Roman computers could not represent ZERO, their lowest valu
e
> was I. This
> explains why Cobol subscipts begin with (1) whereas modern languages begin
> with (0). The
> statement PERMOVO MUGIO-PENDO UT FOO (move low-values to foo) filled the a
rea
> with binary
> Is rather than binary zeros. Arithmetic statements producing a value of ze
ro
> where
> considered an error, which had to be handled, for example:
>
> PERMOVO X UT FOO
> DEMO X EX FOO
>    IN AMPLITUDO ERRORIS TRACTARE ERRORIS-TRACTO.
> (subtract 10 from foo on size error perform error-handler)
>
> The Roman Standards Committee (workgroup JIV) did not regard ZERO as an
> integer that could
> be stored in memory but rather as the limit of 1/x as x approached infinit
y. A
> modern
> vestige of this belief is the prohibition against division by zero. x/0 =
> infinity is a
> simple algebraic restatement of 1/infinity = 0.  Cobol II was developed du
ring
> the reign
> of  Emperor Dodi  Schrickerae, who was secretely in league with  Interpopu
lus
> Res
> Aparatus.
>
> Cobol I and II were regarded as Real Cobol. Cobol III, which was widely
> ignored, was
> developed after the fall of Rome by barbarians who worshiped Res Venia (ob
ject
> oriented).
> It was later revealed that the barbarians were actually Communists.
>
> Hope this helps.

In article <dokjl31ffeqgd95hbp2bfsq2svcdkrg3lb@4ax.com>,
Robert  <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:40:39 -0800 (PST), nishu
><nishantchaturvedi@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>
>"COBOLIA est omnis divisa in partes tres." Who could forget the famous
>opening line from
>Bellum Cobolicum?

Oh, I *cannot* resist...

... that kind of false quoting, Mr Wagner, shows 300% more 'brazen
boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence' than should be
permitted to remain joined together... yes, it has enough gall to be
divided into three parts.

DD

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 01:09:14 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>In article <dokjl31ffeqgd95hbp2bfsq2svcdkrg3lb@4ax.com>,
>Robert  <no@e.mail> wrote: 
>
>Oh, I *cannot* resist...
>
>... that kind of false quoting, Mr Wagner, shows 300% more 'brazen
>boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence' than should be
>permitted to remain joined together... yes, it has enough gall to be
>divided into three parts.

Didn't you mean insouciance (marked by blythe unconcern), "an elegantly inso
uciant
manner?"