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

[Alain Lucari]

John,

Nothing is "perfect" ... But O-C is the better you can have for free
or, even, with dollars.
In a old time I have used M-F and Acu and they are not PERFECT :
you must correct your program in order to use one or the other.
O-C try with his flavours to help anybody to compile program writed
with no_correction : this is too much for me, if you want to use a
compiler YOU must do what you do for use it.

About five years ago I try to use Tiny (thanks Rildo for his work)
but, sometimes some programs do'nt compile without any message 
(because the same name in a copy and the working-storage-section,
most of the times MF and Acu accept that and take what ?)

In a first time, I have used O-C just for discover "where is the
problem" and after found, correct the mistake and compile with tiny.
After, I have worked a little with keisuke and explain where are 
some problems for cobol program. Keisuke don't know Cobol but is
very good in C and I well know cobol and can explain where are some
problems.
At this time, I have about 660 programs totalizing 237 000 lines
running in production with O-C 0-23.19 because I have well tested,
with PostgreSQL with my own interface, on about 40 PCs.

Seriously, is somedody using NOW Accept/Dispalay at line/column ?
the worst thing I know.
If someone is interested I can send my "Eclair" product, really
better, free and the interface with pg also ...
BUT you must work a little : free or paying, nothing is without
a less of work ;-))

Be cool : now line/column is deprecated, use php or java, perhaps
with some money ... or most work.

Because my bad english (U.S) and the time for write with it,
I don't post too much, but yours asks are too out_of_date for me.
But, if you write french, you can post to me in it ... ^-(

Regards,

Alain Lucari (Eurlix)
Je sais pourquoi tant de gens aiment couper du bois.
C'est une activité où l'on voit tout de suite le résultat. Einstein.

Le Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:13:15 -0400
"John R. Culleton" <address@hidden> a écrit:

> 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. 
>