-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/23/07 22:11, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 08:34:15PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 10/23/07 20:08, David Fox wrote: >>> On 10/23/07, Chris Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> Does anyone know of a good cobol compiler and gui development >>>> enviroment? I have seen open-cobol as a compiler, but was wondering if >>>> anyone has any other recommendations? >>> >>> I've not yet heard of an open cobol, seems that it might be >>> interesting. Last I checked, there was >>> a tiny cobol compiler that I got somewhere on the net but don't have >>> it anymore and can't remember where I got it. >> Correct. COBOL* is so complicated a language, and so anti-geeky, >> that no one has really had an itch to create a full COBOL >> environment. You'll have to pony up the coin for a commercial compiler. >> >> * And it's soulmate PL/I. > > I'll bite: why do you need COBOL? You've go C, Fortran, and Ada in
Because apps written in COBOL are highly portable across platforms. > gcc, plus Python (interpreted). IIUC, the philosophy behind COBOL is > that non-programmers can at least read it to understand what is That bit of stupidness went out the window decades ago. > happening. You can achieve that with Python if you're careful. Also, I > believe its one of the minor goals of Ada. > > Of course, if you _need_ a COBOL compiler, you _need_ COBOL. It seems > that OpenCOBOL traslates COBOL to C and then compiles that with gcc. I'd hate to see that C code. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHH0eYS9HxQb37XmcRAkLcAKCmPQvqi+eXwrGEcEmNF677YnaSjwCff9m9 fO9zG2lsHlzZp7gh4FLvp0c= =1lPS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
