Is Unisys Cobol to IBM cobol a big leap?

How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM?

..    On  23.11.04
wrote  pkline@ltdXspamXcommodities.com (Jack Benny)
on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in  95p6q0pe79vqkbqf9qa1fs1lh0dugagccu@4ax.com
about  Is Unisys Cobol to IBM cobol a big leap?


JB> How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM?

MCP or OS/2200?

Anyway, you would perhaps encounter some strange IBM-extensions to
COBOL, but it should not be to big a change, as far as COBOL itself is
concerned.

But transaction processing with CICS, database interfaces etc have
probably bigger differences to, say, TIP/HVTIP/MCB/DPS or DMS/2200 and
RDMS, to speak of the OS/2200-side.

Different are of course things like job control language and
editors, which have to be learned.


Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Ängstlich zu sinnen und zu denken, was man hätte tun können, ist das Übelste
, was man tun _kann_. -G.C.Lichtenberg

Here in comp.lang.cobol,
l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) spake unto us, saying:

>JB> How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM?
>
>   MCP or OS/2200?

I've written COBOL74 on both, and the two languages are quite similar.

Now, CANDE and UEDIT have a few differences...  :-)

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Smyrna, GA USA
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

"Richard Steiner" <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote in message
news:IwApBpHpvCFO092yn@visi.com...
> Here in comp.lang.cobol,
> l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) spake unto us, saying:
> 
>
> I've written COBOL74 on both, and the two languages are quite similar.
>
> Now, CANDE and UEDIT have a few differences...  :-)
>

As Mr. Steiner says, the bigger change between "Brand X" COBOL and "Brand Y"
COBOL is the development environment: the editor, testing tools,
compilation/linking procedures, etc.

The language differences across brands in the actual "working" verbs are are
piddling - if existent at all. (Hmm, come to think of it, I think that was
the whole idea behind a COBOL "standard" in the first place.)

MCM

It may be worth mentioning that IBM no longer markets a '74 compiler (for
MVS, OS/390, and z/OS).  The last compiler with the "CMPR2" (compile like VS
COBOL II, R2) feature was IBM COBOL for OS/390 & VM - which has been out of
service for a little while now.  The VS COBOL II, R2 compiler was the last
REALLY '74 style compiler - and "compatibility" was extended for quite a
while.

Having said that, it is true that most '74 Standard (no extension) code
*will* compile and run  "as expected" with an '85 Standard compiler (such as
IBM's Enterprise COBOL).  Fruthermore, many IBM shops still have an older
compiler available (if not in active use).

"Jack Benny" <pkline@ltdXspamXcommodities.com> wrote in message
 news:95p6q0pe79vqkbqf9qa1fs1lh0dugagccu@
4ax.com...
> How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM?

..    On  23.11.04
wrote  pkline@ltdXspamXcommodities.com (Jack Benny)
on  /COMP/LANG/COBOL
in  95p6q0pe79vqkbqf9qa1fs1lh0dugagccu@4ax.com
about  Is Unisys Cobol to IBM cobol a big leap?


JB> How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM?

MCP or OS/2200?

Anyway, you would perhaps encounter some strange IBM-extensions to
COBOL, but it should not be to big a change, as far as COBOL itself is
concerned.

But transaction processing with CICS, database interfaces etc have
probably bigger differences to, say, TIP/HVTIP/MCB/DPS or DMS/2200 and
RDMS, to speak of the OS/2200-side.

Different are of course things like job control language and
editors, which have to be learned.


Yours,
Lüko Willms                                     http://www.willms-edv.de
/--------- L.WILLMS@jpberlin.de -- Alle Rechte vorbehalten --

Ängstlich zu sinnen und zu denken, was man hätte tun können, ist das Übelste
, was man tun _kann_. -G.C.Lichtenberg

"Richard Steiner" <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote in message
news:IwApBpHpvCFO092yn@visi.com...
> Here in comp.lang.cobol,
> l.willms@jpberlin.de (Lueko Willms) spake unto us, saying:
> 
>
> I've written COBOL74 on both, and the two languages are quite similar.
>
> Now, CANDE and UEDIT have a few differences...  :-)
>

As Mr. Steiner says, the bigger change between "Brand X" COBOL and "Brand Y"
COBOL is the development environment: the editor, testing tools,
compilation/linking procedures, etc.

The language differences across brands in the actual "working" verbs are are
piddling - if existent at all. (Hmm, come to think of it, I think that was
the whole idea behind a COBOL "standard" in the first place.)

MCM

It may be worth mentioning that IBM no longer markets a '74 compiler (for
MVS, OS/390, and z/OS).  The last compiler with the "CMPR2" (compile like VS
COBOL II, R2) feature was IBM COBOL for OS/390 & VM - which has been out of
service for a little while now.  The VS COBOL II, R2 compiler was the last
REALLY '74 style compiler - and "compatibility" was extended for quite a
while.

Having said that, it is true that most '74 Standard (no extension) code
*will* compile and run  "as expected" with an '85 Standard compiler (such as
IBM's Enterprise COBOL).  Fruthermore, many IBM shops still have an older
compiler available (if not in active use).

"Jack Benny" <pkline@ltdXspamXcommodities.com> wrote in message
 news:95p6q0pe79vqkbqf9qa1fs1lh0dugagccu@
4ax.com...
> How difficult for a Unisys C74 programmer to acclimate to IBM?