|
|
Comments and Discussions
|
|
 |
|

|
I just dropped your delegates example into a console application using VS 2008 and MF .net. I get the following error whe compiling:
C:\VSProjects\ConsoleApplication1\ConsoleApplication1\Program1.cbl (18,105) : error COBCH0829 : Could not find method 'add_MsgArrivedEvent' with this signature
invoke self::"add_MsgArrivedEvent"(new "MsgArrivedEventHandler"(self::"My_MsgArrivedEventCallback"))
is the line of code with the error
|
|
|
|
|

|
I haven't used COBOL since COBOL '85 on a TI1500 UNIX box so it's interesting to see how the language has evolved.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|

|
Hey
Nice job on the comparison, is there a future for lambda expressions in cobol?
|
|
|
|

|
I am not sure. anonymous delegates are available now - but full, chaining lambda expressions are (afaik) a definite maybe for the future.
Best wishes - AJ
I'll do a post on anonymous delegates if wanted. I have an example floating around somewhere.
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
I just put my delegates post here: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/net-languages/COBOLAnonymousDelegate.aspx
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Your view is your view and you are welcome to it. However, why not explain why you believe this to be so poor? You have added nothing to the discussion - which is a great shame IMHO.
- AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
I agree with you that his post of saying it is very poor and offering no reason why is a shame. There's formatting issues with your article and it does not seem to have any information to it whatsoever.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|

|
Thanks for you feedback.
I appreciate the formatting issues but am not sure how to fix them without having the ability to collapse columns which one does not on the code project (or if one does - I don't know how).
I disagree about the lack of information. If you want to know about the comparison of VB,C# and COBOL then this is very rich in information. If you do not, then it is of no interest. I could say an article on F# holds no information - if I was not interested in F# - however, that is not quite right - it would hold information, just not for me.
Now - I am interested in F# - but that is another matter.
Best wishes - AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
alex turner wrote: If you want to know about the comparison of VB,C# and COBOL then this is very rich in information
I wholeheartedly agree. I never had any formal work with Cobol, only a light touch of it in my old university courses years ago, and do find your comparative very informative. I figured maybe just a short blurb on the comparisons perhaps.
PJC
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|

|
Thanks!
I'll give some thought to a adding a 'blurb'.
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
Nice comparison.
Does anyone know how vb compares to AcuCOBOL?
Is Micro Focus syntax similar to AcuCOBOL?
Thanks,
Dave
|
|
|
|

|
Dave,
Good question!
AcuCOBOL does not compare here because it does not support the full object oriented syntax (there is no .net version).
Both Acu and MF COBOL support standard COBOL (ansi 85) programs, however both have extensions beyond the standards.
But - to say it again - AcuCOBOL is a unmanaged non OO language, it has nothing remotely like the .net stuff shown here.
Hope that helps - AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|
|

|
oops, I mentioned AcuCOBOL. I meant Fujitsu.
|
|
|
|

|
No problem!
As I say, I am not in a position to comment on Fujitsu COBOL other than to say that IMHO the Micro Focus syntax is substantially easier to work with. The in the near future the language will include "quoteless" syntax where by:
invoke myObject::"SomeMethod"
becomes
invoke myObject::SomeMethod
In other words, types not in the COBOL dictionary but which are part of the OO dictionary no longer require quotation. I believe this makes COBOL an easier place to be for business programming.
Thanks for the input - AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
I think you will find that is Fujitsu netCOBOL, not Acu!
I am not in a position to comment of Fujitsu's implementation
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
Well done Alex! Good to see something here demystifying COBOL ... Now people who have to bring legacy code into the .NET world might have a resource to start with so they can see that it's possible. It might also be useful for something here to show how you can take some legacy COBOL and integrate it with a native .NET pp ...
Thanks,
Michael
|
|
|
|

|
Thanks for the encouragement! I shall do that very thing. Watch this space
Please also note that my role was more of a very active editor, the original work was done by Robert.
- AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
Michael,
Here is a start http://www.codeproject.com/KB/net-languages/COBOLSVNBrowser.aspx next I want to show mixing classical procedural COBOL with .net invokes etc.
All the best - AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|

|
Two questions:
Is there any advantage to someone learn Cobol nowadays?
Is there any advantage in modern Cobol Language over C# or Visual Basic?
|
|
|
|

|
The .net version of COBOL is equally capable as VB and C#. There is also a huge amount of COBOL already out there for which a sensible modernization path makes a lot more sense than slash and burn. Add to that the fact that huge numbers of people are retiring from COBOL programming, then clearly there are good motivations for learning COBOL.
On top of that, .net COBOL makes a 'pleasant place to be' when writing business code. As I mentioned in an answer elsewhere on the web just a few days ago - languages have domains in which they are a good fit. Systems programming in Fortran is a mess in just the same way writing a matrix diagonalizer in C# is a mess.
What really interests me is why people have such strong feelings about the subject. COBOL is just another technology. Modern COBOL is a good language with some nice features and some not so nice. What is the big deal?
- AJ
www.nerds-central.com - welcomes all nerds
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
General News Suggestion Question Bug Answer Joke Rant Admin
|
A simple table showing the syntactic conversion from between each of these languages.
| Type | Article |
| Licence | CC (ASA 2.5) |
| First Posted | 15 Dec 2009 |
| Views | 25,639 |
| Bookmarked | 19 times |
|
|