Easytrieve Vs. COBOL

Does anyone know where I can find some documentation regarding the
capabilities of Easytrieve compared to those of COBOL?  Are they
similar?  And if so, are they so similar that there really is no need
for Easytrieve if one knows how to code COBOL?

On 10-Aug-2004, matthew.handi@thehartford.com (Anonymous) wrote:

> Does anyone know where I can find some documentation regarding the
> capabilities of Easytrieve compared to those of COBOL?  Are they
> similar?  And if so, are they so similar that there really is no need
> for Easytrieve if one knows how to code COBOL?

They are not similar.   But unlike SAS, I was able to learn Easytrieve with 
a
manual and some samples.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:54:52 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
enlightened us:

>
>On 10-Aug-2004, matthew.handi@thehartford.com (Anonymous) wrote:
> 
>
>They are not similar.   But unlike SAS, I was able to learn Easytrieve with
 a
>manual and some samples.

As Howard said, they are not similar.  Easytrieve is best used for
"quick and dirty" reports although I do know of sites that create
files, do complex reports and other things and freeze the software so
that it can be run like a compiled and linked Cobol program.  It is a
good tool to have in your arsenal, but Cobol is far more flexible and
do things Easytrieve struggles with (like 2 or 3 dimensional table
handling).

Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden.
It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we
find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't
care.  It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Just an observation - Compiled Easytrieve CAN be faster than Cobol - if you
really need a performance edge.

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
 news:nsthh0l02siojktfq0ljivrapo67nmn3up@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:54:52 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> enlightened us:
> 
with a 
>
> As Howard said, they are not similar.  Easytrieve is best used for
> "quick and dirty" reports although I do know of sites that create
> files, do complex reports and other things and freeze the software so
> that it can be run like a compiled and linked Cobol program.  It is a
> good tool to have in your arsenal, but Cobol is far more flexible and
> do things Easytrieve struggles with (like 2 or 3 dimensional table
> handling).
>
> Regards,
>
>           ////
>          (o o)
> -oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>
> "The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden.
> It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we
> find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
>
> "I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't
> care.  It's not that important. It's not our priority."
> - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Remove nospam to email me.
>
> Steve

I know some people who choose Easytrieve to write their quick programs.    B
ut I
speak CoBOL natively, my Easytrieve isn't so natural.   And even experienced
Easytrieve programmers get caught by some not obvious quirks of the sort tha
t
CoBOL doesn't have.

Writing a quick and dirty CoBOL program is real quick - except that it isn't
dirty as I have done these programs so many times.

And if the program is a complex thing that will need lots of maintenance - t
he
choice between languages is shared by all of us - CoBOL.

On 10-Aug-2004, matthew.handi@thehartford.com (Anonymous) wrote:

> Does anyone know where I can find some documentation regarding the
> capabilities of Easytrieve compared to those of COBOL?  Are they
> similar?  And if so, are they so similar that there really is no need
> for Easytrieve if one knows how to code COBOL?

They are not similar.   But unlike SAS, I was able to learn Easytrieve with 
a
manual and some samples.

Just an observation - Compiled Easytrieve CAN be faster than Cobol - if you
really need a performance edge.

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
 news:nsthh0l02siojktfq0ljivrapo67nmn3up@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:54:52 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
> enlightened us:
> 
with a 
>
> As Howard said, they are not similar.  Easytrieve is best used for
> "quick and dirty" reports although I do know of sites that create
> files, do complex reports and other things and freeze the software so
> that it can be run like a compiled and linked Cobol program.  It is a
> good tool to have in your arsenal, but Cobol is far more flexible and
> do things Easytrieve struggles with (like 2 or 3 dimensional table
> handling).
>
> Regards,
>
>           ////
>          (o o)
> -oOO--(_)--OOo-
>
>
> "The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden.
> It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we
> find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001
>
> "I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't
> care.  It's not that important. It's not our priority."
> - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Remove nospam to email me.
>
> Steve

I know some people who choose Easytrieve to write their quick programs.    B
ut I
speak CoBOL natively, my Easytrieve isn't so natural.   And even experienced
Easytrieve programmers get caught by some not obvious quirks of the sort tha
t
CoBOL doesn't have.

Writing a quick and dirty CoBOL program is real quick - except that it isn't
dirty as I have done these programs so many times.

And if the program is a complex thing that will need lots of maintenance - t
he
choice between languages is shared by all of us - CoBOL.