>The COBOL example does not extend beyond those compiler writers as far as I >have seen. And I, for one, would not paint the entire COBOL team with that >broad brush. Tom Ross (although I think he's moved on to other things) was >a strong customer advocate - still is (although I have forgotten where he's >hiding these days).
I am still here...I just don't respond to retirees who have lost touch and don't have enough hobbies to keep them off IBMMAIN. For others, we did try to eliminate the need for a messages manual with the new (post 1984) COBOL diagnostics, with hours spend pouring over them to ensure consistency and clarity. That being said, there are a few that really do require a messages manual, and we (IBM COBOL development) are considering adding that in the future. For most messages, the manual would just say "See the syntax diagram and rules in the Language Reference Manual". I sure wish other products spent as much time as COBOL has on messages! In my current job I am using a lot of DB2, IMS and CICS, and some messages add very little value, they might as well just give me the number to look up in the messages manual. On the other other hand, run-time products have a much more complex set of problems to deal with then a simple "Here is a COBOL program tell me what syntax errors there are" :-) Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
