chris2@garfield.MUN.EDU (Chris Paulse) (11/25/89)
I'm overwhelmed by the volume of this group, but this seems an administrative necessity. I don't know anything about cobol, but I see lots of jobs for Cobol programmers in misc.jobs.offered (especially in Florida, which is my favorite place). I also know that there is no such comp.lang.cobol group. I don't want to delay society by proposing comp.lang.cobol, but rather get someone's attention by letting them see `new newsgroup alt.cobol add? [y,n]' the next time they login. This newsgroup will contain _absolute_ weirdness if ever created. Do I have anyone yet? microsoft has cobol, mvs has cobol, vms has cobol, rt-11 has cobol, !!alt!! needs cobol.
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/26/89)
>microsoft has cobol, mvs has cobol, vms has cobol, rt-11 has cobol, >!!alt!! needs cobol. There's at least one Cobol for Unix, it's called "RM Cobol" (I am *not* making this up), and they never understand the snickers as we walk by their booth at trade shows. I have nothing against a Cobol group, I have nothing against Cobol (as long as they, er, keep to their place), but I think the question of "where is the interest?" is valid. Completeness arguments ("there's a group for other major languages") and marketing arguments ("there are a zillion cobol programmers out there, somewhere") just don't cut it. Are there at least several people who will stand up and say "I am a Cobol programmer and would benefit personally from this group" rather than the current spate of "I've known some Cobol programmers and they're not bad folks...wouldn't let my daughter marry one though..." There really seems to be a disturbing third-person aspect to this discussion. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (11/26/89)
>>>>> On 25 Nov 89 19:33:10 GMT, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) said:
Barry> I have nothing against a Cobol group, I have nothing against Cobol (as
Barry> long as they, er, keep to their place), but I think the question of
Barry> "where is the interest?" is valid.
[...]
Barry> Are there at least several people who will stand up and say "I am a
Barry> Cobol programmer and would benefit personally from this group" rather
Barry> than the current spate of "I've known some Cobol programmers and
Barry> they're not bad folks...wouldn't let my daughter marry one though..."
I... I.... I've .... um.... programmed.... in.... well... um.... COBOL.
[Well, there goes that engagement to Barry's daughter. :-]
Yeah, I'd read alt.cobol (or comp.lang.cobol). I'd even post to it, though
I can't claim any sort of divine knowledge of the darned thing.
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet>
"Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/27/89)
IDENTIFICATION-DIVISION. I, too, have programmed in COBOL. My brother-in-law programs in COBOL. But, really, most people who program in COBOL that *I* know run screaming in fear at the suggestion that they spend even more time on the subject. My brother-in-law did. (waits for RS or OK to declare it's permanently warped my mind) -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (11/27/89)
> > There's at least one Cobol for Unix, it's called "RM Cobol" (I am > *not* making this up), and they never understand the snickers as we > walk by their booth at trade shows. > I for one use RM (Ryan McFarland) Cobol (snicker, snicker) and LIKE IT! > Are there at least several people who will stand up and say "I am a > Cobol programmer and would benefit personally from this group" rather > than the current spate of "I've known some Cobol programmers and > they're not bad folks...wouldn't let my daughter marry one though..." I maintain a large volume of Cobol code, I make money (you know, the green stuff) from Cobol and would probably benefit, post and otherwise use the proposed Cobol group to further my knowledge of the subject. I also use other languages when they would do the job better and/or faster. In my own humble opinion, anytime one becomes wedded to or violently against a particular language or for that matter, operating system, becomes the loser. -- Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {attctc,texbell}vector!holston!barton PO Box 1781 | (PSEUDO) DOMAIN: barton@holston.UUCP Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ---------------------------------------- 318-439-5984 | "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"-JC
" Maynard) (11/27/89)
In article <7107@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >IDENTIFICATION-DIVISION. > I, too, have programmed in COBOL. >(waits for RS or OK to declare it's permanently warped my mind) 20 REJOINDER$="Peter, it's permanently warped your mind." 30 DISCLAIMER$="I have consciously never learned COBOL." 40 SUPPORT$="Still, a COBOL group would be a Good Thing." -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
steve@pmday_2.Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (11/28/89)
In article <1989Nov25.193310.20967@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > >>microsoft has cobol, mvs has cobol, vms has cobol, rt-11 has cobol, >>!!alt!! needs cobol. > >There's at least one Cobol for Unix, it's called "RM Cobol" (I am >*not* making this up), and they never understand the snickers as we >walk by their booth at trade shows. We use it (RM-Cobol) here on our Towers, and love it. There are 2 varieties of RM-COBOL, the '74 version and the '85 version. In addition, there are several other vendors of COBOL for unix boxes: LPI and Microfocus comes to mind. >Completeness arguments ("there's a group for other major languages") >and marketing arguments ("there are a zillion cobol programmers out >there, somewhere") just don't cut it. > >Are there at least several people who will stand up and say "I am a >Cobol programmer and would benefit personally from this group" rather >than the current spate of "I've known some Cobol programmers and >they're not bad folks...wouldn't let my daughter marry one though..." Well, I program in COBOL (as well as some other languages), and I am standing up as I type this and have to say "I am a COBOL programmer and would benefit personally from this group". (there, you got at least one response). ____________________________________________________________________________ | Steve Bridges | e-mail: | | NCR Corporation -- USDPG Product Marketing | Steve.Bridges@dayton.ncr.com | | and Support Office Level Systems | ..!ncrlnk!pmday_2!steve | | 1334 South Patterson Blvd | (513)-445-4182 | | Dayton, OH 45479 | 622-4182 (VoicePlus) | |_____________________________________________|______________________________| COPY "stand.disclaim". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ COBOL-ese for #include "stand.disclaim"
juliar@hpcll17.HP.COM (Julia Rodriguez) (11/28/89)
I work on developing ANSI standards for COBOL. I would certainly profit from feedback from a COBOL notesgroup provided COBOL programmers actually read the group. Julia
denny@mcmi.uucp (Denny Page) (11/29/89)
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >There's at least one Cobol for Unix, it's called "RM Cobol" (I am >*not* making this up), and they never understand the snickers as we >walk by their booth at trade shows. Micro Focus is another high use compiler -- They hold their own shows. I think that Cobol under Unix is much more widespread than people on the Net are able to consider without lapsing into coma. Anybody wanna start a discussion of how extensively Basic is still used? Dislaimer: I do not use or know Cobol Denny -- Good health is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (11/29/89)
In article <1989Nov25.193310.20967@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
) Are there at least several people who will stand up and say "I am a
) Cobol programmer ...
What? You mean in public? While it's two steps above child
molestation, and about a step and a half above being a member
of the school board, it's hardly something you can expect to
see many people admit in public.
Seriously: yes, there is at least cobol-under-unix vendor. The
product I have seen was semi-compiled and then interpreted, as
was that crazy basic under CP/M. Truly stomach-wrenching. And,
like that CP/M basic, not a discussion topic of much interest at
this time.
He may get his 100 votes in the allotted month, but I doubt that
he'll get a hundred useful articles in the same period of time.
I suggest, therefore, either "comp.lang.misc" or "talk.religion"
might be good newsgroups for any cobol discussion that arises.
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra attctc bpa gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tannerwayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (12/01/89)
In article <1989Nov28.162054.25166@mcmi.uucp> denny@mcmi.uucp (Denny Page) writes: > [ ... ] > > I think that Cobol under Unix is much more widespread than people on > the Net are able to consider without lapsing into coma. > > Anybody wanna start a discussion of how extensively Basic is still used? > > Dislaimer: I do not use or know Cobol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ no, but i know for a fact that, like our site, denny's site uses cobol quite heavily. :-> yes, i think cobol under unix is _much_ more common than many people think. while i am admitting things, we also use basic. we also use C, pascal, assembler and a few other languages. each have their uses and each have their draw backs. i would vote yes for a cobol news group. -wayne
jeff@jeffpc.eds.com (Jeff Trim) (12/03/89)
In article <1810003@hpcll17.HP.COM> juliar@hpcll17.HP.COM (Julia Rodriguez) writes: >I work on developing ANSI standards for COBOL. I would certainly profit >from feedback from a COBOL notesgroup provided COBOL programmers actually >read the group. I would agree with you here - but it seems like 'vmsnet' is a better place to talk about COBOL. VMS supports it quite nicely - along with other DEC Os's - here in the UNIX crowd you might run into it once or twice, but definately not as often as you would on VMS machines. I think a call for: vmsnet.cobol is in order. Your going to guarentee yourself MORE COBOL programs over there than here I'd venture to guess. Besides any of the UNIX programmer that want to read that group can easily get the feed - and most sites are promising to support 'vmsnet' w/ or w/out a COBOL group. - Jeff -- INET: jeff@jeffpc.eds.com UUCP: [ uunet, teemc ]!{edsews, glc}!jeffpc!jeff Disclaimer: Don't blame anyone else but me -- I said it.
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (12/05/89)
In article <6@jeffpc.eds.com> jeff@jeffpc.eds.com (Jeff Trim) writes: > [ ... ] > > I would agree with you here - but it seems like 'vmsnet' is a better place > to talk about COBOL. VMS supports it quite nicely - along with other > DEC Os's - here in the UNIX crowd you might run into it once or twice, > but definately not as often as you would on VMS machines. I think a call > for: > > vmsnet.cobol > > is in order. Your going to guarentee yourself MORE COBOL programs over > there than here I'd venture to guess. Besides any of the UNIX programmer > that want to read that group can easily get the feed - and most sites > are promising to support 'vmsnet' w/ or w/out a COBOL group. since when is usenet dedicated to unix only?? yes, it may have _started_ on unix systems, and there might be a higher percentage of unix systems on usenet than other systems, but it doesnt mean that usenet is for unix only. comp.os.vms is one of the highest volume groups on usenet. higher than comp.unix.questions, comp.unix.wizards, or comp.unix.xenix. it may not be as high as all of the unix groups combined, but it's high enough to show that there are a _lot_ of vms user on usenet. go ahead and create a vmsnet.cobol. you will be sorry. you would be better off creating vmsnet.comp.lang.cobol. there are a lot of C programs on vms too. what are you going to do, create vmsnet.c? if you are going to duplicate all of usenet under vmsnet, you would probably be wise to keep most of the names the same. one last thing... no, it is _not_ easy to get a vmsnet feed. none of my neighbors get it, none of my neighbors' neighbors get it. i am not about to pay long distance charges to get it. neither are most of the other sites that i know of. sure, a lot of the "backbone" sites have agreed to carry it, but that doesnt mean that is well connected yet. i certainly don't think that "most sites are promising to support 'vmsnet'". some sites, yes. many sites, maybe. most sites, no. -wayne