On 16 Feb 2013 13:15:06 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Scott Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thomas, >> >> I don't follow, writing in several languages , what awkward to do in >> cobol, supervisory stuff yes for sure. >> > >Yoda? Is that you? :-) > >If this was supposed to be asking "What is it that's awkward to do in >COBOL?", try calculating the offset between two data elements. For one. I >know that every time I go to write something in it, I run up against "You >just can't do that in this language" and my response is "Seriously? Wow." >(OK, or I write an assembler function to enable what I need...)
Read the current manuals. As someone who has manipulated the SMF 30 records using COBOL WITHOUT resorting to Assembler, I can state that for much problem program state work, COBOL is quite adequate. I have also created a system usage report in COBOL that read files of IDR records created by an assembler program and parsed source program files to determine CALL and COPY usage. Enterprise COBOL is a very powerful language and adding the 2002 improvements would make it even more so. Clark Morris > >Admittedly, COBOL isn't as bad as I'd been led to believe by three decades >of avoiding it -- but as the saying goes, "You can write your program in ><pick a language>, or you can write a story about your program in COBOL". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
