-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ali Milis wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>> And how good is Open Cobol?
>> Question which I can not answer...
>
> How about tiny Cobol?
>
>>> FYI: We still have a lot of Cobol applications that used
>>> to run on AOS/VS (Data General). Those applica
Ron Johnson wrote:
>> And how good is Open Cobol?
> Question which I can not answer...
How about tiny Cobol?
>> FYI: We still have a lot of Cobol applications that used
>> to run on AOS/VS (Data General). Those applications
>> were migrated Sun Solaris.
> Spend an hour compiling a few simple pro
On 11/01/07 08:14, Ali Milis wrote:
>> apt-cache search cobol
>
> And how good is Open Cobol?
Question which I can not answer...
> FYI: We still have a lot of Cobol applications that used
> to run on AOS/VS (Data General). Those applications
> were migrated Sun Solaris.
Spend an hour compiling
> apt-cache search cobol
And how good is Open Cobol?
FYI: We still have a lot of Cobol applications that used
to run on AOS/VS (Data General). Those applications
were migrated Sun Solaris.
regards,
--
Raja Ali M.I. Ilias, Bengkalis, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AliMilis
Counted GNU/Linux Engineer #
On 11/01/07 07:23, Bernard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a cobol compiler for Linux. Do someone knows about such a
> tool, commercial or not?
apt-cache search cobol
--
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 go
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:00:39AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 10/25/07 08:01, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:56:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 10/24/07 18:03, Chris Parker wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the responses. We do now use microfocus, but that is running
> >>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/25/07 08:01, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:56:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 10/24/07 18:03, Chris Parker wrote:
>>> Thanks for the responses. We do now use microfocus, but that is running
>>> on SCO. I was looking
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:56:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 10/24/07 18:03, Chris Parker wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the responses. We do now use microfocus, but that is running
> > on SCO. I was looking for a Linux version less expensive. Licensing
> > for Microfocus on Linux is $500,000 f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/24/07 18:03, Chris Parker wrote:
[snip]
>
> Thanks for the responses. We do now use microfocus, but that is running
> on SCO. I was looking for a Linux version less expensive. Licensing
> for Microfocus on Linux is $500,000 for everything. T
Daniel Mahoney wrote:
Chris Parker 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?
Thanks,
Chris
That's about the only freeware Cobol compiler I've
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:24:40AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > 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.
Only if the platform has a COBOL compiler, which I think is the problem
under discussio
Chris Parker 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?
Thanks,
Chris
That's about the only freeware Cobol compiler I've seen. I'd like to see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/24/07 14:01, Martin Marcher wrote:
> 2007/10/24, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On 10/23/07 22:11, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>> I'll bite: why do you need COBOL? You've go C, Fortran, and Ada in
>> Because apps written in COBOL are highly p
2007/10/24, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 10/23/07 22:11, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
Are there any sarcasm tags missing?
So it is highly port
-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 go
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,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
>> a
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?
01 SORRY P
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: cobol compiler/gui dev enviroment
Hello all,
Does anyone know of a good cobol compiler and gui development enviroment?
I have seen open-cobol as a compiler, but was w
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 19:37, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:46:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:28, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > > Well then you do it differently:
> > > open(INPUT,"records.txt");
> > > LOOP: while($record = )
> > > {
> > > if(!input_filte
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 05:46:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:28, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > Well then you do it differently:
> > open(INPUT,"records.txt");
> > LOOP: while($record = )
> > {
> > if(!input_filter($record))
> > {
> > next LOOP;
> > }
> > else
> >
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 17:13, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:35:04PM -0800, Britton wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > Some time after I left the COBOL job, I was employed wr
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:28, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 18:23, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:30:57PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:29, David Turetsky wrote:
>
--ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:27:51PM -0700, Deryk Barker wrote:
> Thus spake Kirk Strauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>=20
> > At 2003-08-27T11:41:17Z, Pigeon <[EMAIL PROT
--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:35:04PM -0800, Britton wrote:
>=20
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
>=20
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 18:23, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:30:57PM -0500, Ro
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 22:13, Deryk Barker wrote:
> Thus spake Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 17:34, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:15:13AM -0500, Michael Heironimus wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Al Davis wrote:
Thus spake Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 17:34, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:15:13AM -0500, Michael Heironimus wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Al Davis wrote:
> > > > Learn the style, so when someone gives you a COBOL-st
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 16:27, Deryk Barker wrote:
> Thus spake Kirk Strauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > At 2003-08-27T11:41:17Z, Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > To me, it seems that the obvious solution is to run the script through a
> > > Perl compiler, and produce a binary executabl
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 17:34, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:15:13AM -0500, Michael Heironimus wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Al Davis wrote:
> > > Learn the style, so when someone gives you a COBOL-style
> > > program in C++, you will understand it.
> >
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:04:55PM -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
>
> You should keep in mind that a lot of the overhead involved with Perl
> comes from having to load the interpreter. In the case of webservers,
> you can get tremendous results by constantly keeping the interpreter
> loaded and jus
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:15:13AM -0500, Michael Heironimus wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Al Davis wrote:
> > Learn the style, so when someone gives you a COBOL-style
> > program in C++, you will understand it.
>
> Do not underestimate the value of this. You can take a COBOL
Thus spake Kirk Strauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> At 2003-08-27T11:41:17Z, Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > To me, it seems that the obvious solution is to run the script through a
> > Perl compiler, and produce a binary executable that should execute at the
> > same order of speed as any o
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can't say about Perl, but attempts at a Python compiler have only
> been partially successful, because Python is so dynamic.
Common Lisp is also a very dynamic language, and can be compiled.
(Some implementations are completely compiled.)
AFAICT, it's ju
s a script.
You have the same slowness issues you have with a regular perl script.
-Jason
-Original Message-
From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:35 PM
To: Debian-User
Subject: Re: COBOL compiler
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:41, Pigeon wrote:
> O
At 2003-08-27T11:41:17Z, Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To me, it seems that the obvious solution is to run the script through a
> Perl compiler, and produce a binary executable that should execute at the
> same order of speed as any other compiled HLL code.
Perl is compiled into opcodes be
Дана сре, 27-08-2003 у 06:41, Pigeon је написао:
--snip--
> Is there any reason why any of these complex scripting languages have
> to be interpreted, as opposed to compiled?
>
> Some quite complex packages are around which have been written in
> such languages; Perl seems to be both common and ex
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:41:17PM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> To me, it seems that the obvious solution is to run the script through
> a Perl compiler, and produce a binary executable that should execute
> at the same order of speed as any other compiled HLL code. Why is this
> not done? Is it simply t
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:41, Pigeon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:53:34PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 19:35, Britton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > [snip]
[snip]
>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:53:34PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 19:35, Britton wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > This just isn't true. Perl at least is brought to its knee
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 05:42, bob parker wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:46, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:22, bob parker wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > I particularly like the way it deletes the most significant figure(s)
> > > when you get
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:46, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:22, bob parker wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > I particularly like the way it deletes the most significant figure(s)
> > when you get an overflow in a numeric field. Or so it did last time I ha
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 00:41, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 22:57, Al Davis wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 August 2003 04:35 am, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> --snip--
[snip]
> I have been absolutely amazed by how easy COBOL is to read. However,
> that also comes at the price of being incredib
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:15:13 -0500,
Michael Heironimus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Al Davis wrote:
> > Learn the style, so when someone gives you a COBOL-style
> > program in C++, you will understand it.
>
> Do not under
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:57:27PM -0400, Al Davis wrote:
> Learn the style, so when someone gives you a COBOL-style
> program in C++, you will understand it.
Do not underestimate the value of this. You can take a COBOL programmer
and teach him C/C++/Java (or whatever popular language), and he'll
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 22:57, Al Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 August 2003 04:35 am, Alex Malinovich wrote:
--snip--
> You didn't say what your major is, so I am assuming it is CS.
CIS actually. Not nearly as much theory as CS and a very solid grounding
in business and management. About the most 'ad
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 09:18, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:36, Mark Roach wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:52, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 03:35, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > > I've, unfortunately, been forced into taking a COBOL class as a
> > > > requirement
On Tuesday 26 August 2003 04:35 am, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> I've, unfortunately, been forced into taking a COBOL class as
> a requirement for getting my BS. (And that's just what it is,
> a load of BS...) What's worse is that I can't seem to find
> any Free COBOL tools. 'apt-cache search cobol' re
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 21:42, David Turetsky wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:29, David Turetsky wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > Here's a simplistic example of how COBOL is specialized:
> > Say we have 2 record definitions:
> > 01 A-SMALL-REC.
> > 05 FIRST-NAME PIC X(15).
> > 05 LAS
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Some time after I left the COBOL job, I was employed writing C
> > in an app that screamed for COBOL. I'd say that 1/5th of the
> > SLOCs, and most of the bugs, were of the form:
> >
>
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:29, David Turetsky wrote:
>
> Yes, but how does that compare with similarly powerful features in
Perl?
> I *knew* someone would ask about the Programmable Extraction and
> Reporting Language...
>
> Please don't think that I am implying that Perl or C are bad
langua
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 18:23, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:30:57PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:29, David Turetsky wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 10:05, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > > > From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For exampl
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 19:35, Britton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> This just isn't true. Perl at least is brought to its knees by a variety
> of problems that C has no trouble with whatsoever. I've
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:22, bob parker wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > > At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of
> > >
--vGgW1X5XWziG23Ko
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:30:57PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 13:29, David Turetsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 10:05, Kirk Strauser
--BwCQnh7xodEAoBMC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Some time after I left the COBOL job, I was employed writing C
> in an app that screamed for COBOL.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of
> > > someone with a brain, it's quite a powerful and modular
toolkit,
> even
> > > > Admiral Hooper would not say that COBOL is the proper tool. OTOH,
> for
> > > > large commercial apps, COBOL is far and away the best tool for the
> > > > job. . . .
> > >
> >
> > From: Ron Johnson [mailto
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:10:35AM -0700, Deryk Barker wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> > and, yes - i'm a student, too. (you may think of me what you
> > stated above, it may be right or not)
>
> I'm afraid that he is correct that students do not
COBOL is the proper tool. OTOH,
for
> > > large commercial apps, COBOL is far and away the best tool for the
> > > job. . . .
> >
>
> From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 12:47 PM
> To: Debian-User
> Subject: Re: COBOL co
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:46:37 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The greatness of COBOL is the fact that it is a honed tool. Just
> as C is great for low-level work, COBOL is *designed* to move,
> process, sort, summarize, etc. fixed-length records around.
Fixed-length or variable-le
- Forwarded message from Yves Goergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> From: "Yves Goergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Debian-User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: COBOL compiler
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:24:12 +0200
> X-Mailer: Microsoft
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 10:05, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2003-08-26T14:25:32Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For a "Hello, World" program, or an OS, or a graphics toolkit, even
> > Admiral Hooper would not say that COBOL is the proper tool. OTOH, for
> > large commercial apps, COBOL
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 10:24, Yves Goergen wrote:
> Von: "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > > At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of some
Von: "Ron Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of someone
> > > with a brain, it's quite a powerful and modular l
At 2003-08-26T14:25:32Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For a "Hello, World" program, or an OS, or a graphics toolkit, even
> Admiral Hooper would not say that COBOL is the proper tool. OTOH, for
> large commercial apps, COBOL is far and away the best tool for the job.
I ask in seriou
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of someone
> > with a brain, it's quite a powerful and modular language.
>
> All Turing-complete languages are e
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:36, Mark Roach wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:52, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 03:35, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > I've, unfortunately, been forced into taking a COBOL class as a
> > > requirement for getting my BS. (And that's just what it is, a load of
At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of someone
> with a brain, it's quite a powerful and modular language.
All Turing-complete languages are equally powerful. That doesn't mean that
any given one would f
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:52, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 03:35, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > I've, unfortunately, been forced into taking a COBOL class as a
> > requirement for getting my BS. (And that's just what it is, a load of
> > BS...) What's worse is that I can't seem to find an
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 03:35, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> I've, unfortunately, been forced into taking a COBOL class as a
> requirement for getting my BS. (And that's just what it is, a load of
> BS...) What's worse is that I can't seem to find any Free COBOL tools.
> 'apt-cache search cobol' returns 3
Alex writes:
> I've, unfortunately, been forced into taking a COBOL class as a
> requirement for getting my BS. (And that's just what it is, a load
> of BS...) What's worse is that I can't seem to find any Free COBOL
> tools. 'apt-cache search cobol' returns 3 hits, all of which are
> documentati
72 matches
Mail list logo
