Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic

2009-10-14 Thread Howard Brazee
On 13 Oct 2009 14:20:58 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) wrote: >I'd say that, to me, it seems that IBM "likes" AIX and Linux. >The iSeries people complain the same way that we do about IBM >not doing much to encourage people to adopt the i. I don't know >any AIX people, but

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-13 Thread Kirk Wolf
This new article in zJournal might be of some interest in the context of this thread: http://www.zjournal.com/index.cfm?section=article&aid=1231 Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / s

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-13 Thread Clark Morris
On 13 Oct 2009 09:58:31 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >My meager understanding of compiling is that it is a multi-phase process >internally. code generation is the second last phase. the last phase >being reporting, i.e. the listing etc. > >One would not want to generate C but what

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic

2009-10-13 Thread McKown, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:51 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to > death was Re

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic

2009-10-13 Thread Howard Brazee
On 13 Oct 2009 08:01:58 -0700, d...@higgins.net (Don Higgins) wrote: >If you and your IBM management really believe "COBOL is the language of the >future", it seems to me that your development and support team, needs to >find a way to allocate some finite portion of your available resources to

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-13 Thread Kirk Talman
My meager understanding of compiling is that it is a multi-phase process internally. code generation is the second last phase. the last phase being reporting, i.e. the listing etc. One would not want to generate C but whatever the stuff is that C produces in its parse+ portion, before it does

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic

2009-10-13 Thread Don Higgins
Tom If you and your IBM management really believe "COBOL is the language of the future", it seems to me that your development and support team, needs to find a way to allocate some finite portion of your available resources to constantly work on making your COBOL compiler more efficient using l

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Rich Smrcina
A COBOL compiler that runs on Linux (including Linux for System z) does produce intermediate C code, before running it through GCC. It is not technically considered a GCC based COBOL, though. Take a look at OpenCOBOL, http://www.opencobol.org. There was some work done some years ago on GCC C

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Sam Siegel
eter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On >> > Behalf Of Sam Siegel >> > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM >> > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >&g

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Sam Siegel
me Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > > Behalf Of Sam Siegel > > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was > Re: > > Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit b

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Farley, Peter x23353
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Sam Siegel > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:00 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: > Does Ent.

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic

2009-10-12 Thread Tom Ross
instructions? >BUT the resulting reduction in customer CPU utilization would >cannibalize the additional hardware sales that would have been made when >customer work volume increases, making the hardware side of the house >*very* unhappy... > >Reducing customer CPU utilization likely loses IBM mor

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Sam Siegel
IBM needs to keep optimizing the c/c++ compiler to support *nix/windows server consolidation onto zLinux. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Clark Morris wrote: > On 12 Oct 2009 10:37:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Kirk Talman > wrote: > > >Why can't Cobol use the C code generator? > > IBM coul

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Clark Morris
On 12 Oct 2009 10:37:56 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Kirk Talman wrote: >Why can't Cobol use the C code generator? IBM could write a parser to generate optimal C/C++ code from COBOL but that would be a large investment and might not produce as good results as the current compiler parser genera

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-12 Thread Kirk Talman
Why can't Cobol use the C code generator? IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 10/09/2009 04:55:20 PM: > Meanwhile, IBM spends considerable effort in optimizing its C/C++ > compilers. Customers with C and C++ applications have more alternatives > to Big Iron. -

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-09 Thread Gord Tomlin
Andrews Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:20 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions? I'll bet I could rent some nice office space and hire a small te

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-09 Thread Farley, Peter x23353
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of David Andrews > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 9:20 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: > Does En

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-09 Thread J D Cassidy
To add even more topic-skew, no mention of a full blown COBOL port to zLinux with ahem.. CICS. JC => On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote: =>> Wrong equations :-) =>> What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the =>> COBOL compiler? =>> =>> Back in the day whe

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-09 Thread P S
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Kirk Wolf wrote: > Wrong equations :-) > What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the > COBOL compiler? > > Back in the day when there was fierce PCM competition, you could add > new instructions and then spend money in compiler exploitation as

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-09 Thread Kirk Wolf
Wrong equations :-) What is the *business case* for adding better optimizations to the COBOL compiler? Back in the day when there was fierce PCM competition, you could add new instructions and then spend money in compiler exploitation as a competitive advantage. Now the business case is a little

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-09 Thread David Andrews
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 02:32 -0400, Bill Klein wrote: > I suspect that many (Possibly even most) existing IBM COBOL customers would > like it if IBM COBOL development had "unlimited" resources for enhancements Unlimited? No, but if IBM applied a higher percentage of gross it would be nice. Roundi

COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-08 Thread Bill Klein
"Clark Morris" wrote in message news:... > On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > > It could be done For those in IBM-MAIN who don't follow such things. Clark has had long running "desires" of how it would like to see IBM COBOL development prioritize things.

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-08 Thread Clark Morris
On 8 Oct 2009 14:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >--- >Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement >64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the >failure to imp

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-08 Thread Ron Wells
runs ... amazing ..concept. today your lucky...with others... to run from one release to another without major problems .. From: Rick Fochtman To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Date: 10/08/2009 04:07 PM Subject: Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 6

Re: COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-08 Thread Rick Fochtman
--- Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement 64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the failure to implement USAGE BIT, the failure to implement the IBM pushed decimal flo

COBOL is an obvious cash cow to be milked to death was Re: Does Ent. COBOL 4.1 generate 64-bit binary arithmetic instructions?

2009-10-08 Thread Clark Morris
Obviously given the lack of support for 64 bit, the failure to implement 64 bit addressing so COBOL can run nicely in 64 bit Websphere, the failure to implement USAGE BIT, the failure to implement the IBM pushed decimal floating point, the failure to implement IEEE floating point using the 2002 COB