Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:51:24 +0800, David Crayford wrote:

>As Martin previously mentioned some languages implement proper tail
>calls so they effectively turn recursion into iteration
>https://www.lua.org/pil/6.3.html.
> 
It better preserve the semantics of variable scope.

>This is a great optimization as recursion is often the most elegant
>method to implement many data structures and algorithms (quicksort,
>binary trees etc).
>
In some cases it avoids, or at least delays, stack overflow.  Remember
to put the long branch on the right.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[scott Ford]

All,

Thats why it is important to understand how a language works. I was
mentoring a bunch until furloughed due to COVID-19, but i digress. I taught
understand the language and its underpinnings.

Scott

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:51 PM David Crayford  wrote:

> As Martin previously mentioned some languages implement proper tail
> calls so they effectively turn recursion into iteration
> https://www.lua.org/pil/6.3.html.
>
> This is a great optimization as recursion is often the most elegant
> method to implement many data structures and algorithms (quicksort,
> binary trees etc).
>
>
> On 2020-04-09 12:40 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> > Yes, very verbose.
> > And yes, recursion is possible, but you must specify "IS RECURSIVE" on
> the PROGRAM-ID.  Not sure what having nested programs has to do with that,
> though.
> >
> > 
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of David Crayford 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:44 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> > Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications?
> - Weirdware
> >
> > Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
> >
> > So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
> > couldn't do before without using a table stack.
> >
> > On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> >> Nested subroutines.
> >>
> >> Small example:
> >>
> >>ID DIVISION.
> >>PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
> >>[...]
> >>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >>CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
> >>GOBACK.
> >>
> >>ID DIVISION.
> >>PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
> >>DATA DIVISION.
> >>WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
> >>01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
> >>[...]
> >>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >>DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
> >>    GOBACK.
> >>
> >>END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
> >>
> >>END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of David Spiegel 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
> >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> >> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications?
> - Weirdware
> >>
> >> Hi Frank,
> >> Thank you for that information.
> >> (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
> >> university courses in the '70s.)
> >>
> >> If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
> >>
> >> Thanks and regards,
> >> David
> >>
> >> On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> >>> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since
> COBOL 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
> >>> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of David Spiegel 
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
> >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> >>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key
> applications? - Weirdware
> >>>
> >>> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
> >>>
> >>> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
> >>>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less
> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.
> The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice
> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down"
> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs
> one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes
> subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
> >>>>
> >>>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my
> temper.  -driving motto */
> >>>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of scott Ford
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
> >>>>
> >>>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I
> always felt each language had its stren

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

As Martin previously mentioned some languages implement proper tail 
calls so they effectively turn recursion into iteration 
https://www.lua.org/pil/6.3.html.


This is a great optimization as recursion is often the most elegant 
method to implement many data structures and algorithms (quicksort, 
binary trees etc).



On 2020-04-09 12:40 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Yes, very verbose.
And yes, recursion is possible, but you must specify "IS RECURSIVE" on the 
PROGRAM-ID.  Not sure what having nested programs has to do with that, though.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Crayford 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

   ID DIVISION.
   PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
   [...]
   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
   CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
   GOBACK.

   ID DIVISION.
   PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
   DATA DIVISION.
   WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
   01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
   [...]
   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
   DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
   GOBACK.

   END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

   END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by 
executing paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Bob Bridges]

I occasionally have to write something recursive.  Every single time, I have to 
stare at the screen for quite a while to figure out how to do it.  For some 
reason the part where I decide where to enter the recursion, and where in the 
loop to exit it, cause me no end of uncertainty.  I don't know why it's so 
difficult for me.  I assume it's not everyone who has that problem.

But sometimes nothing but recursion will do.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* Dad and Mom can share the driving chores, as follows: Dad will start out at 
the wheel, then Mom will take over as soon as Dad dies. Because Dad is a male, 
and males are very reluctant to relinquish control over vehicles. The real 
reason the captain of the Titanic went down with the ship was his fear that, at 
the last minute, his wife would take the helm.  -Dave Barry on family 
vacations, 2003 */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Wayne Bickerdike
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 15:42

My first and only recursive program was written in PL1. To avoid a GOTO.
Wrong! S80A abend. Would probably work today with copious amounts of
memory.

--- On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 02:40 Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> And yes, recursion is possible, but you must specify "IS RECURSIVE" on the
> PROGRAM-ID.  Not sure what having nested programs has to do with that,
> though.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Wayne Bickerdike]

My first and only recursive program was written in PL1. To avoid a GOTO.
Wrong! S80A abend. Would probably work today with copious amounts of
memory.

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, 02:40 Frank Swarbrick 
wrote:

> Yes, very verbose.
> And yes, recursion is possible, but you must specify "IS RECURSIVE" on the
> PROGRAM-ID.  Not sure what having nested programs has to do with that,
> though.
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of David Crayford 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:44 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? -
> Weirdware
>
> Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
>
> So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
> couldn't do before without using a table stack.
>
> On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> > Nested subroutines.
> >
> > Small example:
> >
> >   ID DIVISION.
> >   PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
> >   [...]
> >   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >   CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
> >   GOBACK.
> >
> >   ID DIVISION.
> >   PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
> >   DATA DIVISION.
> >   WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
> >   01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
> >   [...]
> >   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >   DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
> >   GOBACK.
> >
> >   END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
> >
> >   END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
> >
> > ____
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of David Spiegel 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> > Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications?
> - Weirdware
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> > Thank you for that information.
> > (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
> > university courses in the '70s.)
> >
> > If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > David
> >
> > On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> >> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since
> COBOL 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
> >> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on
> behalf of David Spiegel 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
> >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> >> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications?
> - Weirdware
> >>
> >> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
> >>
> >> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
> >>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less
> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.
> The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice
> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down"
> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs
> one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes
> subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
> >>>
> >>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my
> temper.  -driving motto */
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of scott Ford
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
> >>>
> >>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always
> felt each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools
> in a toolbox.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>> .
> >> --
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>
> >> --
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to lists...@list

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Frank Swarbrick]

Yes, very verbose.
And yes, recursion is possible, but you must specify "IS RECURSIVE" on the 
PROGRAM-ID.  Not sure what having nested programs has to do with that, though.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Crayford 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> Nested subroutines.
>
> Small example:
>
>   ID DIVISION.
>   PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
>   [...]
>   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>   CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>   GOBACK.
>
>   ID DIVISION.
>   PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>   DATA DIVISION.
>   WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
>   01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
>   [...]
>   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>   DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>   GOBACK.
>
>   END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>
>   END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> David Spiegel 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> Hi Frank,
> Thank you for that information.
> (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
> university courses in the '70s.)
>
> If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
>
> Thanks and regards,
> David
>
> On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 
>> 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
>> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>>
>> ________________
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
>> David Spiegel 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>> Weirdware
>>
>> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>>
>> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less 
>>> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  
>>> The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice 
>>> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" 
>>> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs 
>>> one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
>>> subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>>
>>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
>>> -driving motto */
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>>> Behalf Of scott Ford
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
>>>
>>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
>>> each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
>>> toolbox.
>>>
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>> .
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> .
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Seymour J Metz]

PKB. It's offensive to try to put words in my mouth.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 10:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

On 2020-04-08 9:26 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Have you stopped beating your wife?
That's offensive and you you should think twice before making comments
like that!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

On 2020-04-08 9:26 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Have you stopped beating your wife?
That's offensive and you you should think twice before making comments 
like that!


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Seymour J Metz]

> What's wrong with extending the standard on the platform where COBOL rules?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Your "question" is an asservtion contrary 
to fact; I never suggested that there is anything wrong with extensions. What I 
did suggest is that the semantics of a language are in the defining document, 
and that the semantics of the extension are irrelevant to determining the 
semantics of the language itself.

> The mainframe's raison d'être is to run COBOL programs! 

ROTF,LMAO. I have decades of experience with mainframes running no COBOL code.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 8:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

What's wrong with extending the standard on the platform where COBOL
rules? The mainframe's raison d'être is to run COBOL programs! The ANSI
standard specifies OO but that seems to be only for Java interop on z/OS.

On 2020-04-08 8:30 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Either ANSI requires allowing recursive inner subroutines or it doesn't. If 
> ANSI requires it then IBM isn't ANSI compliant; if ANSI doesn't require it 
> then it clearly has to do with COBOL semantics and the other compilers have 
> extended the standard. If ANSI doesn't require it then the question remains 
> why not.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> On 2020-04-08 7:24 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>> Recursive programs cannot contain nested subprograms.
>> Why, in the name of the great lord Harry, not? I'll stick to PL/I, TYVM.
> COBOL semantics probably don't have anything to do with it as other
> COBOL compilers support it.
> I would suggest it's an implementation detail with how z/OS COBOL
> allocates LOCAL-STORAGE.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:37 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>> Weirdware
>>
>> *RECURSIVE*
>>   An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
>>   reentered.
>>
>>   You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
>>   of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
>>   subprograms.
>>
>>   If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
>>   recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
>>   If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
>>   be recursively reentered.
>>
>> On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
>>> PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.
>>>
>>> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>>>> Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
>>>> recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>>>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf 
>>>> of David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>>>> Weirdware
>>>>
>>>> Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
>>>>
>>>> So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
>>>> couldn't do before without using a table stack.
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>>>&g

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

What's wrong with extending the standard on the platform where COBOL 
rules? The mainframe's raison d'être is to run COBOL programs! The ANSI 
standard specifies OO but that seems to be only for Java interop on z/OS.


On 2020-04-08 8:30 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Either ANSI requires allowing recursive inner subroutines or it doesn't. If 
ANSI requires it then IBM isn't ANSI compliant; if ANSI doesn't require it then 
it clearly has to do with COBOL semantics and the other compilers have extended 
the standard. If ANSI doesn't require it then the question remains why not.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

On 2020-04-08 7:24 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Recursive programs cannot contain nested subprograms.

Why, in the name of the great lord Harry, not? I'll stick to PL/I, TYVM.

COBOL semantics probably don't have anything to do with it as other
COBOL compilers support it.
I would suggest it's an implementation detail with how z/OS COBOL
allocates LOCAL-STORAGE.




--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

*RECURSIVE*
  An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
  reentered.

  You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
  of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
  subprograms.

  If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
  recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
  If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
  be recursively reentered.

On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:

PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

 ID DIVISION.
 PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
 [...]
 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
 CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
 GOBACK.

 ID DIVISION.
 PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
 DATA DIVISION.
 WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
 01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
 [...]
 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
 DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
 GOBACK.

 END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

 END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a &qu

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Seymour J Metz]

Either ANSI requires allowing recursive inner subroutines or it doesn't. If 
ANSI requires it then IBM isn't ANSI compliant; if ANSI doesn't require it then 
it clearly has to do with COBOL semantics and the other compilers have extended 
the standard. If ANSI doesn't require it then the question remains why not.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

On 2020-04-08 7:24 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>> Recursive programs cannot contain nested subprograms.
> Why, in the name of the great lord Harry, not? I'll stick to PL/I, TYVM.

COBOL semantics probably don't have anything to do with it as other
COBOL compilers support it.
I would suggest it's an implementation detail with how z/OS COBOL
allocates LOCAL-STORAGE.


>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> *RECURSIVE*
>  An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
>  reentered.
>
>  You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
>  of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
>  subprograms.
>
>  If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
>  recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
>  If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
>  be recursively reentered.
>
> On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
>> PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.
>>
>> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>>> Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
>>> recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>>
>>> ________________________
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>>> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>>> Weirdware
>>>
>>> Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
>>>
>>> So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
>>> couldn't do before without using a table stack.
>>>
>>> On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>>> Nested subroutines.
>>>>
>>>> Small example:
>>>>
>>>> ID DIVISION.
>>>> PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
>>>> [...]
>>>> PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>>>> CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>>>> GOBACK.
>>>>
>>>> ID DIVISION.
>>>>     PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>>>> DATA DIVISION.
>>>> WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
>>>> 01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
>>>> [...]
>>>> PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>>>> DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>>>> GOBACK.
>>>>
>>>> END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>>>>
>>>> END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf 
>>>> of David Spiegel 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>>>> Weirdware
>>>>
>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>> Thank you for that information.
>>>> (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
>>>> university courses in the '70s.)
>>>>
>>>> If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
>>>>
>>

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

On 2020-04-08 7:24 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:

Recursive programs cannot contain nested subprograms.

Why, in the name of the great lord Harry, not? I'll stick to PL/I, TYVM.


COBOL semantics probably don't have anything to do with it as other 
COBOL compilers support it.
I would suggest it's an implementation detail with how z/OS COBOL 
allocates LOCAL-STORAGE.






--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

*RECURSIVE*
 An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
 reentered.

 You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
 of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
 subprograms.

 If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
 recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
 If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
 be recursively reentered.

On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:

PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

ID DIVISION.
PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
[...]
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
GOBACK.

ID DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
DATA DIVISION.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
[...]
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
GOBACK.

END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by 
executing paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Seymour J Metz]

> Recursive programs cannot contain nested subprograms.

Why, in the name of the great lord Harry, not? I'll stick to PL/I, TYVM.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

*RECURSIVE*
An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
reentered.

You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
subprograms.

If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
be recursively reentered.

On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
> PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.
>
> https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>> Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
>> recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
>> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>> Weirdware
>>
>> Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
>>
>> So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
>> couldn't do before without using a table stack.
>>
>> On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>> Nested subroutines.
>>>
>>> Small example:
>>>
>>>ID DIVISION.
>>>PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
>>>[...]
>>>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>>>CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>>>GOBACK.
>>>
>>>ID DIVISION.
>>>PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>>>DATA DIVISION.
>>>WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
>>>01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
>>>[...]
>>>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>>>    DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>>>    GOBACK.
>>>
>>>END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>>>
>>>END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
>>> David Spiegel 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>>> Weirdware
>>>
>>> Hi Frank,
>>> Thank you for that information.
>>> (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
>>> university courses in the '70s.)
>>>
>>> If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>>> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 
>>>> 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
>>>> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf 
>>>> of David Spiegel 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>>>> Weirdware
>>>>
>>>> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>>>>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less 
>>>>> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths. 
>>>>>  The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice 
>>>>> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" 
>>>>> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs 
>>>>> one through three, then two more

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

Unfortunately, probably not. Most of the languages that support 
tail-recursion are dynamically typed or require annotations. Probably a 
bridge too far for COBOL.


On 2020-04-08 4:47 PM, Martin Packer wrote:

I wonder if specifying this leads to compilers doing (optimised)
tail-recursion - where appropriate.

Cheers, Martin

Martin Packer

zChampion, Systems Investigator & Performance Troubleshooter, IBM

+44-7802-245-584

email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com

Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker

Blog:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker

Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): https://developer.ibm.com/tv/mpt/or
   
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2



Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA



From:   David Crayford 
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date:   08/04/2020 09:38
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize
key applications? - Weirdware
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List 



*RECURSIVE*
 An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
 reentered.

 You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
 of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
 subprograms.

 If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
 recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
 If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
 be recursively reentered.

On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:

PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.



https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm


On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports

recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz


https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mason.gmu.edu_-7Esmetz3&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=BsPGKdq7-Vl8MW2-WOWZjlZ0NwmcFSpQCLphNznBSDQ&m=vApB8Pw9Cu4OwyYrwyWnJybkrmVmizS30iIud0_La7E&s=_ADEInxU_xV_FnsM-OM-2gGrrNOmBgyVWSRzVJfZkSw&e=



From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on

behalf of David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications?

- Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

ID DIVISION.
PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
[...]
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
GOBACK.

ID DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
DATA DIVISION.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
[...]
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
GOBACK.

END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on

behalf of David Spiegel 

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key

applications? - Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since

COBOL 1985 (VS COBOL II era).

They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on

behalf of David Spiegel 

Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key

applications? - Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are

less wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its
strengths.  The one I think most important is that it encourages even
novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a
"top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing
paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph
executes subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my

temper.  -driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IB

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Martin Packer]

I wonder if specifying this leads to compilers doing (optimised) 
tail-recursion - where appropriate.

Cheers, Martin

Martin Packer

zChampion, Systems Investigator & Performance Troubleshooter, IBM

+44-7802-245-584

email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com

Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker

Blog: 
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker

Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): https://developer.ibm.com/tv/mpt/or 
  
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2


Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA



From:   David Crayford 
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date:   08/04/2020 09:38
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize 
key applications? - Weirdware
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List 



*RECURSIVE*
An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
reentered.

You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
subprograms.

If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
be recursively reentered.

On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
> PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.
>
> 
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm

>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>> Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>> 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mason.gmu.edu_-7Esmetz3&d=DwICaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=BsPGKdq7-Vl8MW2-WOWZjlZ0NwmcFSpQCLphNznBSDQ&m=vApB8Pw9Cu4OwyYrwyWnJybkrmVmizS30iIud0_La7E&s=_ADEInxU_xV_FnsM-OM-2gGrrNOmBgyVWSRzVJfZkSw&e=
 

>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on 
behalf of David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? 
- Weirdware
>>
>> Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
>>
>> So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
>> couldn't do before without using a table stack.
>>
>> On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>> Nested subroutines.
>>>
>>> Small example:
>>>
>>>ID DIVISION.
>>>PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
>>>[...]
>>>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>>>CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>>>GOBACK.
>>>
>>>ID DIVISION.
>>>PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>>>DATA DIVISION.
>>>WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
>>>01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
>>>[...]
>>>PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>>>        DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>>>GOBACK.
>>>
>>>END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>>>
>>>END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on 
behalf of David Spiegel 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key 
applications? - Weirdware
>>>
>>> Hi Frank,
>>> Thank you for that information.
>>> (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
>>> university courses in the '70s.)
>>>
>>> If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>> On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>>>> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since 
COBOL 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
>>>> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on 
behalf of David Spiegel 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
>>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>>>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key 
applications? - Weirdware
>>>>
>>>> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>>>>> I used to bad-mout

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

*RECURSIVE*
   An optional clause that allows COBOL programs to be recursively
   reentered.

   You can specify the RECURSIVE clause only on the outermost program
   of a compilation unit. Recursive programs cannot contain nested
   subprograms.

   If the RECURSIVE clause is specified, program-name can be
   recursively reentered while a previous invocation is still active.
   If the RECURSIVE clause is not specified, an active program cannot
   be recursively reentered.

On 2020-04-08 4:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:

PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

   ID DIVISION.
   PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
   [...]
   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
   CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
   GOBACK.

   ID DIVISION.
   PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
   DATA DIVISION.
   WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
   01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
   [...]
   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
   DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
   GOBACK.

   END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

   END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by 
executing paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Mike Schwab]

PROGRAM-ID pgmname RECURSIVE.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SS6SG3_4.2.0/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.2/PGandLR/tasks/tpsubw03.htm

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 9:47 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>
> Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
> recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
> David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!
>
> So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
> couldn't do before without using a table stack.
>
> On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> > Nested subroutines.
> >
> > Small example:
> >
> >   ID DIVISION.
> >   PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
> >   [...]
> >   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >   CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
> >   GOBACK.
> >
> >   ID DIVISION.
> >   PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
> >   DATA DIVISION.
> >   WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
> >   01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
> >   [...]
> >   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
> >   DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
> >   GOBACK.
> >
> >   END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
> >
> >   END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
> >
> > ____
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> > David Spiegel 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> > Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> > Weirdware
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> > Thank you for that information.
> > (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
> > university courses in the '70s.)
> >
> > If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > David
> >
> > On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> >> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 
> >> 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
> >> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf 
> >> of David Spiegel 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
> >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> >> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> >> Weirdware
> >>
> >> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
> >>
> >> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
> >>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less 
> >>> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths. 
> >>>  The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice 
> >>> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" 
> >>> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs 
> >>> one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
> >>> subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
> >>>
> >>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
> >>> -driving motto */
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> >>> Behalf Of scott Ford
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
> >>>
> >>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always 
> >>> felt each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like 
> >>> tools in a toolbox.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >>> .
> >> --
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to lists...@list

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Seymour J Metz]

Maybe,but there's nothing in his example to suggest that COBOL supports 
recursion; you'd have to check the documentation.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Crayford [dcrayf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you
couldn't do before without using a table stack.

On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> Nested subroutines.
>
> Small example:
>
>   ID DIVISION.
>   PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
>   [...]
>   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>   CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>   GOBACK.
>
>   ID DIVISION.
>   PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>   DATA DIVISION.
>   WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
>   01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
>   [...]
>   PROCEDURE DIVISION.
>   DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
>   GOBACK.
>
>   END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
>
>   END PROGRAM MAINPROG.
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> David Spiegel 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> Hi Frank,
> Thank you for that information.
> (All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
> university courses in the '70s.)
>
> If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?
>
> Thanks and regards,
> David
>
> On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 
>> 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
>> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>>
>> ________________
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
>> David Spiegel 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>> Weirdware
>>
>> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>>
>> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less 
>>> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  
>>> The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice 
>>> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" 
>>> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs 
>>> one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
>>> subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>>
>>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
>>> -driving motto */
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>>> Behalf Of scott Ford
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
>>>
>>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
>>> each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
>>> toolbox.
>>>
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>> .
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> .
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Crayford]

Wow, and some people criticize Java for being verbose!

So using nested programs one can implement recursion in COBOL which you 
couldn't do before without using a table stack.


On 2020-04-08 5:14 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

  ID DIVISION.
  PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
  [...]
  PROCEDURE DIVISION.
  CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
  GOBACK.

  ID DIVISION.
  PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
  DATA DIVISION.
  WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
  01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
  [...]
  PROCEDURE DIVISION.
  DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
  GOBACK.

  END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

  END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by 
executing paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Clark Morris]

[Default] On 7 Apr 2020 13:59:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
dspiegel...@hotmail.com (David Spiegel) wrote:

>Hi Frank,
>Thank you for that information.
>(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my 
>university courses in the '70s.)
>
>If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

COBOL has nested programs.  All callable routines are programs.  As
part of a year 2000 project I created the date subroutine as a program
in a copybook.  The program library had it as a program with the only
code a COPY statement copying the copybook with the same name as the
program.  This took advantage of the nested COPY capability so that
the copybook could contain copy statements.  This allowed the date
routine to be either included as source in the CALLing program or as a
separate module.  Look up nested programs in the manual.

Clark Morr
>
>Thanks and regards,
>David
>
>On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
>> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 
>> 1985 (VS COBOL II era).
>> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
>> David Spiegel 
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
>> Weirdware
>>
>> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>>
>> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less 
>>> wordy.  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  
>>> The one I think most important is that it encourages even novice 
>>> programmers to organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" 
>>> manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs 
>>> one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
>>> subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>>
>>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
>>> -driving motto */
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>>> Behalf Of scott Ford
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
>>>
>>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
>>> each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
>>> toolbox.
>>>
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>> .
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> .
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[John McKown]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:56 AM scott Ford  wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> Yes sir, same here. I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some
> PL/1.
> I always felt each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were
>

And a few of those tools leave you with bloody fingers if you don't know
how to use them properly!



> like tools in a toolbox.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:51 AM Wayne Bickerdike  wrote:
>
> > Interesting. I remember back in 1979 debugging the old Micro Focus COBOL.
> > It was one of the few tools available for z80 based machines running CP/M
> > and MP/M.
> >
> > It had a screen handler that used DISPLAY and ACCEPT and a primitive ISAM
> > file system. Nice thing was that it would run in 48K of memory. MP/M only
> > gave you 44K in bank switched memory in the first bank and 48K in the
> other
> > 3 banks (if you had that config).
> >
> > Nice to see a survivor of all the platform changes over the years and a
> > truly excellent COBOL workbench.
> >
> > REALIA COBOL and CICS were also pretty neat in their day. Eventually
> dumped
> > by CA.
> >
> > Learned to like COBOL over the years, just. It does the job.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:08 PM Mark Regan  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.weirdware.com/2020/03/24/why-rip-out-cobol-when-you-can-modernise-key-applications
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > *https://tinyurl.com/rezyxke* 
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Mark T. Regan
> > >
> > > --
> > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wayne V. Bickerdike
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *IDMWORKS *
>
> Scott Ford
>
> z/OS Dev.
>
>
>
>
> “By elevating a friend or Collegue you elevate yourself, by demeaning a
> friend or collegue you demean yourself”
>
>
>
> www.idmworks.com
>
> scott.f...@idmworks.com
>
> Blog: www.idmworks.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this email message and any attachment may be
> privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or
> use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
> the message and permanently delete it from your computer and destroy any
> printout thereof.*
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
People in sleeping bags are the soft tacos of the bear world.
Maranatha! <><
John McKown

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Frank Swarbrick]

Sorry, I guess technically they are "nested programs".


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Frank Swarbrick 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 3:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

 ID DIVISION.
 PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
 [...]
 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
 CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
 GOBACK.

 ID DIVISION.
 PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
 DATA DIVISION.
 WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
 01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
 [...]
 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
 DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
 GOBACK.

 END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

 END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
> (VS COBOL II era).
> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> David Spiegel 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>
> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy. 
>>  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one 
>> I think most important is that it encourages even novice programmers to 
>> organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" manner:  This 
>> paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs one through 
>> three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes subsubparagraphs, and 
>> so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
>>
>> ---
>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>
>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
>> -driving motto */
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>> Behalf Of scott Ford
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
>>
>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
>> each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
>> toolbox.
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> .
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> .

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Frank Swarbrick]

Nested subroutines.

Small example:

 ID DIVISION.
 PROGRAM-NAME. MAINPROG.
 [...]
 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
 CALL 'NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
 GOBACK.

 ID DIVISION.
 PROGRAM-ID. NESTED-PROGRAM-1.
 DATA DIVISION.
 WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
 01  LOCAL-VAR-1 PIC X.
 [...]
 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
 DISPLAY 'IN NESTED-PROGRAM-1'
 GOBACK.

 END PROGRAM NESTED-PROGRAM-1.

 END PROGRAM MAINPROG.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my
university courses in the '70s.)

If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:
> Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
> (VS COBOL II era).
> They're not ideal, but they do exist.
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
> David Spiegel 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
> Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
> Weirdware
>
> How about no internal subroutines with local variables?
>
> On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
>> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy. 
>>  But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one 
>> I think most important is that it encourages even novice programmers to 
>> organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" manner:  This 
>> paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs one through 
>> three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes subsubparagraphs, and 
>> so on.  Forms good habits, I think.
>>
>> ---
>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>
>> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
>> -driving motto */
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>> Behalf Of scott Ford
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
>>
>> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
>> each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
>> toolbox.
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> .
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> .

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Spiegel]

Hi Frank,
Thank you for that information.
(All the COBOL I support(ed) didn't contain these and neither did my 
university courses in the '70s.)


If I wanted to look them up, which keyword(s) would I use?

Thanks and regards,
David

On 2020-04-07 15:49, Frank Swarbrick wrote:

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of David 
Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by 
executing paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Frank Swarbrick]

Internal subroutines and local variables have been supported since COBOL 1985 
(VS COBOL II era).
They're not ideal, but they do exist.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
David Spiegel 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:
> I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  
> But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I 
> think most important is that it encourages even novice programmers to 
> organize their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" manner:  This 
> paragraph accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs one through 
> three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes subsubparagraphs, and so 
> on.  Forms good habits, I think.
>
> ---
> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>
> /* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
> -driving motto */
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
> Behalf Of scott Ford
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55
>
> I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
> each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
> toolbox.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> .

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Seymour J Metz]

The original COBOL was an abomination, although to be fair it was intended to 
be short term, just until whatever the long term comittee came up with was 
available. PERFORM was more of a Rube Goldberg device than an assist to 
structured programming.

The CODASYL report was printed on soft yellow paper, and a colleague commented 
that it wasn't perforated.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob 
Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 2:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  
But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I 
think most important is that it encourages even novice programmers to organize 
their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph 
accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs one through three, then two 
more, and this subparagraph executes subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good 
habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[David Spiegel]

How about no internal subroutines with local variables?

On 2020-04-07 14:47, Bob Bridges wrote:

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  But I came 
somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I think most important is 
that it encourages even novice programmers to organize their logic in what we used to 
call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph accomplish a certain task by 
executing paragraphs one through three, then two more, and this subparagraph executes 
subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Bob Bridges]

I used to bad-mouth COBOL, and I still prefer languages that are less wordy.  
But I came somewhat reluctantly to see that it has its strengths.  The one I 
think most important is that it encourages even novice programmers to organize 
their logic in what we used to call a "top-down" manner:  This paragraph 
accomplish a certain task by executing paragraphs one through three, then two 
more, and this subparagraph executes subsubparagraphs, and so on.  Forms good 
habits, I think.

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* My life is in the hands of any fool who can make me lose my temper.  
-driving motto */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:55

I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some PL/1.  I always felt 
each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were like tools in a 
toolbox.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Steve Beaver]

My first job was writing PL/I and COBOL and assembler.

All when I was doing CICS Macro Level.

Then I've been spoiled using REXX

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of scott Ford
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - 
Weirdware

Wayne,

Yes sir, same here. I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some
PL/1.
I always felt each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were
like tools in a toolbox.


Scott


On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:51 AM Wayne Bickerdike  wrote:

> Interesting. I remember back in 1979 debugging the old Micro Focus COBOL.
> It was one of the few tools available for z80 based machines running CP/M
> and MP/M.
>
> It had a screen handler that used DISPLAY and ACCEPT and a primitive ISAM
> file system. Nice thing was that it would run in 48K of memory. MP/M only
> gave you 44K in bank switched memory in the first bank and 48K in the other
> 3 banks (if you had that config).
>
> Nice to see a survivor of all the platform changes over the years and a
> truly excellent COBOL workbench.
>
> REALIA COBOL and CICS were also pretty neat in their day. Eventually dumped
> by CA.
>
> Learned to like COBOL over the years, just. It does the job.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:08 PM Mark Regan  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> https://www.weirdware.com/2020/03/24/why-rip-out-cobol-when-you-can-modernise-key-applications
> >
> > or
> >
> > *https://tinyurl.com/rezyxke* <https://tinyurl.com/rezyxke>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark T. Regan
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
>
> --
> Wayne V. Bickerdike
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 



*IDMWORKS *

Scott Ford

z/OS Dev.




“By elevating a friend or Collegue you elevate yourself, by demeaning a
friend or collegue you demean yourself”



www.idmworks.com

scott.f...@idmworks.com

Blog: www.idmworks.com/blog





*The information contained in this email message and any attachment may be
privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or
use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and permanently delete it from your computer and destroy any
printout thereof.*

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[scott Ford]

Wayne,

Yes sir, same here. I learned Assembler first and then Cobol and then some
PL/1.
I always felt each language had its strengths and weaknesses and all were
like tools in a toolbox.


Scott


On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:51 AM Wayne Bickerdike  wrote:

> Interesting. I remember back in 1979 debugging the old Micro Focus COBOL.
> It was one of the few tools available for z80 based machines running CP/M
> and MP/M.
>
> It had a screen handler that used DISPLAY and ACCEPT and a primitive ISAM
> file system. Nice thing was that it would run in 48K of memory. MP/M only
> gave you 44K in bank switched memory in the first bank and 48K in the other
> 3 banks (if you had that config).
>
> Nice to see a survivor of all the platform changes over the years and a
> truly excellent COBOL workbench.
>
> REALIA COBOL and CICS were also pretty neat in their day. Eventually dumped
> by CA.
>
> Learned to like COBOL over the years, just. It does the job.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:08 PM Mark Regan  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> https://www.weirdware.com/2020/03/24/why-rip-out-cobol-when-you-can-modernise-key-applications
> >
> > or
> >
> > *https://tinyurl.com/rezyxke* 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark T. Regan
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
>
>
> --
> Wayne V. Bickerdike
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 



*IDMWORKS *

Scott Ford

z/OS Dev.




“By elevating a friend or Collegue you elevate yourself, by demeaning a
friend or collegue you demean yourself”



www.idmworks.com

scott.f...@idmworks.com

Blog: www.idmworks.com/blog





*The information contained in this email message and any attachment may be
privileged, confidential, proprietary or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or
use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and permanently delete it from your computer and destroy any
printout thereof.*

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Wayne Bickerdike]

Interesting. I remember back in 1979 debugging the old Micro Focus COBOL.
It was one of the few tools available for z80 based machines running CP/M
and MP/M.

It had a screen handler that used DISPLAY and ACCEPT and a primitive ISAM
file system. Nice thing was that it would run in 48K of memory. MP/M only
gave you 44K in bank switched memory in the first bank and 48K in the other
3 banks (if you had that config).

Nice to see a survivor of all the platform changes over the years and a
truly excellent COBOL workbench.

REALIA COBOL and CICS were also pretty neat in their day. Eventually dumped
by CA.

Learned to like COBOL over the years, just. It does the job.


On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 10:08 PM Mark Regan  wrote:

>
> https://www.weirdware.com/2020/03/24/why-rip-out-cobol-when-you-can-modernise-key-applications
>
> or
>
> *https://tinyurl.com/rezyxke* 
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark T. Regan
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
Wayne V. Bickerdike

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Fwd: Why rip out COBOL when you can modernize key applications? - Weirdware

[Mark Regan]

https://www.weirdware.com/2020/03/24/why-rip-out-cobol-when-you-can-modernise-key-applications

or

*https://tinyurl.com/rezyxke* 

Regards,

Mark T. Regan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN