wdw@aucs.UUCP (12/04/87)
At Acadia University we are considering a project that would require a
good stable COBOL environment running on the Unix operating system. If
anyone has experience (good or bad) that they would like to share we
would be very appreciative. Please provide specifics as to which COBOL
environment you've tried and on which variant of UNIX it was running.
Thanks very much.
--
UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!wdw
BITNET: WDW@Acadia
Internet: WDW%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDUjmr@motown.UUCP (12/08/87)
> At Acadia University we are considering a project that would require a > good stable COBOL environment running on the Unix operating system. If > anyone has experience (good or bad) that they would like to share we > would be very appreciative. Please provide specifics as to which COBOL > environment you've tried and on which variant of UNIX it was running. > > UUCP: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!wdw > BITNET: WDW@Acadia > Internet: WDW%Acadia.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU Gee -- And I though I was the only one cursed by COBOL! Actually, I *wish* I had good experience to pass along... I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee such a thing. Our first company to deal with was Philon in New York City. They claim that their COBOL runs under BSD or Ultrix. The System V version will be ready for release ``in about two weeks'' -- That quote was given to me in April, 1986... Next major attempt was with Austec. Same deal -- nothing for System V. This is the company that bought Ryan-McFarland. Their COBOL supposedly also runs on BSD and Ultrix. The main problem with this company is a complete lack of cooperation. Let's see -- from my last conversation, their System V COBOL will be ready ``in about two weeks...'' Good luck talking to ANYBODY from Austec. They have a terrible aversion to returning phone calls. If I had a dime for every time I was told ``I'll call you tomorrow...'' ... Unfortunately, we're stuck using Ryan-McFarland's toy COBOL compiler. It is exceptionally slow as it's a runtime interpreter. It's also missing a few things like: SORT/MERGE, STRING, UNSTRING, COMMUNICATIONS. Overall it is tolerable if you don't have to do any real work. I wish you luck, but just wanted to let you know it ain't gonna be easy! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I enjoy working with human beings, and John M. Ritter have stimulating relationships with them." Allied-Signal, Inc. - HAL 9000 Corporate Tax Department {bellcore,clyde,ihnp4,princeton,rutgers}!motown!jmr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (12/08/87)
> I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run > on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee such a > thing. Such a beastie does exist. However, I don't know who makes it. Last week I interviewed with afirm that is doing a large part of its work in COBOL. They are in the process of trashing their Burroughs mainframe and replacing it with several NCR Towers which are SysVr2 boxes. They claim to be using a great compiler that is available for SysV, MS-DOS, and something else that I don't recall. They claimed it was great, especially since they could move the source between several operating systems without changing anythiong. I'm sorry I can't give the name of it. -- j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke "And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151)
zellich@ALMSA-1.arpa (Rich Zellich) (12/08/87)
We're more-or-less happily using Philon COBOL on our Sperry's, running System V. We haven't exercised all that many functions with the code written to date, but from the manuals it seems to have everything but the kitchen sink.
kai@ihlpa.ATT.COM (55664-Irwin) (12/09/87)
In article <1508@motown.UUCP>, jmr@motown.Allied.COM (John M. Ritter) writes: > > At Acadia University we are considering a project that would require a > > good stable COBOL environment running on the Unix operating system. If > > anyone has experience (good or bad) that they would like to share we > > would be very appreciative. Please provide specifics as to which COBOL > > environment you've tried and on which variant of UNIX it was running. > > > > Gee -- And I though I was the only one cursed by COBOL! > Actually, I *wish* I had good experience to pass along... > > I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run > on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee such a > thing. > blah... blah > > Unfortunately, we're stuck using Ryan-McFarland's toy COBOL compiler. > It is exceptionally slow as it's a runtime interpreter. It's also > missing a few things like: SORT/MERGE, STRING, UNSTRING, > COMMUNICATIONS. Overall it is tolerable if you don't have to do any > real work. > > I wish you luck, but just wanted to let you know it ain't gonna be easy! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "I enjoy working with human beings, and John M. Ritter I've worked with a COBOL compiler by Advanced Computer Technics or somthing like that, anyway its ACT COBOL for short. Its not a fast compiler but the object code it generates flies! Bench Marked against RM-COBOL it was some 175 times faster in non I/O intensive programs, and about 25 times faster in ISAM reads. The bench marks were simple, count in a single register and tell me when you get to a thousand. I ran RM and it took about 10 sec, I then tried ACT and it returned the "I'm done" before I could get my finger off the return key. SO I decided to up the count to a million and I don't remember the exact figures off hand but I do remember 175 times faster! The I/O test was equally as simple, count to a thousand and write a record every increment, first in a flat file then in a keyed file, then read one record at a time and display on the terminal with no LF. This test net a 2500% better response than RM. I'm sure the test weren't large enough to be true, but I kinda like to think than ACT was 17500% faster than RM. I don't know how many machines this has been ported to (I used it on a 3B2 when I worked for ATTIS). MicroFocus is also 'sposed to be pretty good, but I've never tried it. Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IHP 1A332 (312) 416-4485 ...!ihlpa!kai
tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) (12/10/87)
In article <4601@eecae.UUCP>, lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: > > I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run > > on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee such a > > thing. > Ryan-McFarland COBOL and Micro-Focus Enhanced Technology both run on the AT&T 3B series running System V. (last time I checked, anyway) The MF package has a "native-code" generator, so that it's truly compiled, not just interprested by the run-time module. I've never worked with the RM package. -- Tom Gillespie ( ...ihnp4!picuxa!tgr) | (attmail!tgillespie) (201) 952-1178 AT&T/EDS Product Integration Center 299 Jefferson Rd. Parsippany NJ 07054 "Don't take life so serious ... it ain't nohow permanent." -- Walt Kelly
stein@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stein) (12/10/87)
Normally I'd reply to the original requestor by email (I did for
someone else asking about COBOL environments), but I missed the request
and it's purged here.
There are three COBOL environments I know about for System V. The
really portable one is Ryan-McFarland's RM/COBOL. It is available for a
wide variety of machines and is pretty solid in my experience. The one
big drawback is that it's pseudocompiled, so there are space limitations
and it's slow.
I tried Philon COBOL on an ATT Unix PC (7300) (aka 3B1) last year.
We could not get it to link to C language subroutines as documented in
the manual, so we abandoned it. It is true compiled and fast, but make
sure that all the features you need work (such as C routine linking).
I did one system in MicroFocus COBOL on a 3B2/400. It worked
fairly well, had a pseudocompiled and true compile mode, and was fairly
well documented. We did have some intermittent and not-reliably-reprodu-
cible problems with it; I don't know if they were fixed. (They may have
been os problems rather than compiler problems.) Annoyance: there's a
termcaps-style configuration file that you have to set up for it.
Hope this helps.
- Mike Stein
uunet!vrdxhq!dolqci!stein
(202)535-0640
The above represents the absolute truth. Therefore it could not
possibly have been written or approved by my employer.osm@metavax.UUCP (Owen Scott Medd) (12/10/87)
In article <4601@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: >> I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run >> on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee such a >> thing. >Such a beastie does exist. However, I don't know who makes it. One candidate is RM-Cobol, by Ryan-McFarland. I know it runs on SysV and good old BSD, SysIII, and MS-DOS. It seems to be a good product, and has gotten consistently good reviews. This also translates into "not cheap". Owen -- USMail: Meta Systems, Ltd. 315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Phone: +1 313 663 6027 UUCP: uunet!umix!metavax!osm Internet: osm%metavax.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu
jmsully@admin.UUCP (John M. Sully) (12/15/87)
I know that Austec (formerly Ryan-Mcfarland) makes a COBOL compiler for UNIX.
glidden@morgoth.UUCP (Ken A. Glidden) (12/19/87)
>In article <173@admin.UUCP>, jmsully@admin.UUCP (John M. Sully) writes: >> I know that Austec (formerly Ryan-Mcfarland) makes a COBOL compiler for >> UNIX. Uniq Digital Technologies, Batavia, IL 312-879-1008 markets this. -- LIVE: Ken A. Glidden, (617) 969-0050 ARPA: adelie!morgoth!glidden@harvard.HARVARD.EDU UUCP: {harvard | ll-xn | mirror | axiom}!adelie!morgoth!glidden
patk@riddle.UUCP (Patrick King) (12/24/87)
Expires: Followup-To: In article <173@admin.UUCP> jmsully@admin.UUCP (John M. Sully) writes: >I know that Austec (formerly Ryan-Mcfarland) makes a COBOL compiler for >UNIX. There is also VS COBOL from Micro Focus. VS COBOL is compatible with most COBOL variants, and provides a development environment for software that could run on a PC, Mini or mainframe computer. Applications developed on IBM mainframes can be transfered to XENIX and vive-versa. The compiler supports level II COBOL source and caan use code generated with ANIMATOR and FORMS-2. -- ====================================================== Reply To: patk@sphinx.co.uk Sphinx Limited 43-53 Moorbridge Road, Phone: 06228 75343 Maidenhead, TLX : 849812 Berks SL6 8PB. FAX : 0628 70110 England. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ================|My views are my own|================= - - - - - - - - - -
jal@auspyr.UUCP (Joe Longo) (01/23/88)
John M. Ritter (jmr@motown.Allied.COM) writes:
"I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run
on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee (sic)
such a thing."
Austec has had a COBOL available for System V since early 1985. The
product is called ACECOBOL, is GSA Certified High for Cobol 74 and
generates interpretive code, with an option to compile into native (a.out).
"Next major attempt was with Austec. Same deal -- nothing for System V.
This is the company that bought Ryan-McFarland. Their COBOL
supposedly also runs on BSD and Ultrix. The main problem with the
company is a complete lack of cooperation. ...."
I'm not sure why you had this problem when you called us -- no-one here
recalls talking to Allied Signal, so either that person is gone or you
called a long time ago. When people call and ask about ACECOBOL for
SystemV, they're usually asked to nominate the system they want it on.
ACECOBOL runs on a long list of machines, including
AT&T 3B's, VAX/Ultrix, Gould Powernode, Pyramid, Edge,
Xenix 286, Xenix 386, NCR Tower, IBM 9370/IX370,
etc..
ACECOBOL also runs on VAX/VMS, IBM PC/DOS and Stratus/VOS.
As well as that, it has a number of networking capabilities that make it
unique, allowing just about all of the above systems to be connected using
simple RS232 lines, or, in some cases, a LAN.
If you like, you can call me direct with your COBOL questions.
My number of (408) 279 5303. Ask for Joe Longo, VP Technical Services.
---------------------------------------------- -----=-----
Regards, ----===----
---=====---
Joe Longo, --=== ===--
San Jose. -==== ====--
...!amdahl!aussjo!jal, jal@auspyr.UUCP austec - rmcntm1458@dsacg3.UUCP (John Darby) (01/29/88)
in article <1673@auspyr.UUCP>, jal@auspyr.UUCP (Joe Longo) says: > John M. Ritter (jmr@motown.Allied.COM) writes: > "I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run > on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee (sic) > such a thing." > ACECOBOL runs on a long list of machines, including > AT&T 3B's, VAX/Ultrix, Gould Powernode, Pyramid, Edge, > Xenix 286, Xenix 386, NCR Tower, IBM 9370/IX370, > etc.. > If you like, you can call me direct with your COBOL questions. > My number of (408) 279 5303. Ask for Joe Longo, VP Technical Services. > ...!amdahl!aussjo!jal, jal@auspyr.UUCP austec - rmc We have a Gould 9050 runing UTX/32 4.3BSD with some System V. We have ACECOBOL. We also have UNIFY. Our situation is: ACECOBOL only works under SYSTEM V. UNIFY works under 4.3 BSD. ACECOBOL does not work with UNIFY. All of our routines for UNIFY are therefore presently being written in C. We have a large number of COBOL programmers who use our IBM mainframe and use COBOL to access the TIS database there. These COBOL programmers and others want to port some smaller applications to UNIX.(GOULD) We presently cannot do this. Noone uses ACECOBOL presently because of these drawbacks. My personal impression is that our organization is not pleased with ACECOBOL and the various problems we have encountered. -- John T. Darby, (DLA Systems Automation Center, DSAC-TMM, P.O. Box 1605 Columbus, OH, ntm1458, 614 238-9174) UUCP: {...cbosgd!osu-cis}!dsacg1!jdarby Any opinions expressed are my own, not those of my employer.
jal@auspyr.UUCP (Joe Longo) (02/02/88)
In article <628@dsacg3.UUCP > you write: > We have a Gould 9050 runing UTX/32 4.3BSD with some System V. We have > ACECOBOL. We also have UNIFY. Our situation is: > ACECOBOL only works under SYSTEM V. UNIFY works under 4.3 BSD. > ACECOBOL does not work with UNIFY. > All of our routines for UNIFY are therefore presently being written in C. You should be aware that Gould has contracted us to port Acecobol to BSD, specifically so that it will work with Unify. This port was completed and handed over to Gould in January, this year. A port to their new processor was handed over in December. Please contact Gould if you require this new release. Otherwise, if you have problems with Acecobol in areas other than the Unify interface, please contact me directly. ---------------------------------------------- -----=----- Regards, ----===---- ---=====--- Joe Longo, --=== ===-- San Jose. -==== ====-- ...!amdahl!aussjo!jal, jal@auspyr.UUCP austec - rmc