Re: [open-cobol-list] Introducing myself...(line numbers)

[John R. Culleton]

On Monday 09 April 2007 09:00, Bill Klein wrote:
> John,
>   Is there a good reason that no matter what anyone posts to the
> OpenCOBOL list, you always refer them to TinyCOBOL (the "static" -
> not-growing - COBOL compiler?
>
> I know that neither are "vendor" products, but your posts to THIS
> list seem inappropriate to me.
>
Well all tools are equal, except where they are not. Tiny has ACCEPT 
DISPLAY positioning, the screen section and also examples of an 
interface to TCL/TK. Open has the virtues you mention. There is in 
fact a TinyCOBOL list. Although the originator of Tiny is no longer 
active David Essex is doing some cleanup of the code from time to 
time. 

I am happy to have both versions active on my computer. 

It strikes me that some of the effort on incorporating the latest 
features of 2002 etc. into Open Cobol could be redirected to 
providing something beyond a simple ACCEPT and DISPLAY for user 
interaction. It is the difference between "nice to have" and "got to 
have." Modern applications pretty much require an interactive 
interface. Open Cobol, for all its virtues, has a great big hole in 
this department.  I had LINE and POSITION parameters in Ryan 
McFarland Cobol decades ago. The screen section has been a part of 
the standard since COBOL 85.  And the Tcl/TK interface offers yet 
another avenue.  

Just for the record I have made posts here asking about "system" 
calls, unstring with TALLYING, ASSIGN for printers,  and existing G/L 
programs, none of which mentioned an alternative compiler, although 
the G/L program package ultimately offered did have a Microsoft 
version of screen handling.  

I would prefer to use Open just for the active support that you 
mention. But first it has to catch up in the critical area of user 
interface.  Since I don't have influence on the Open development 
process I mention an alternative compiler from time to time. 

-- 
John Culleton