What I mean is that there is this misconception that Protos is a sort
of utility program that generates Cobol. In fact, the Protos 4GL is
a full featured programming tool that happens to generate Cobol. For
all the difference it makes, it could generate any programming language.
That is the distinction I am making.

It is true that most of the data base IO calls could be easily replaced
with native calls to Image. However, there are some IO calls that include
sorting, where you would essentially have to rewrite the program to get
the same effect. And use of their screen handling routines are not a
simple wrapper at all. Again, you would have to write the program from
scratch using many VPLUS calls to replace their single call to their
library.

I have converted a few of the simpler programs to Cobol already, using the
method you describe, but I have one online screen program with about 18
separate modules programmed together, and there, for instance, we are not
talking about fixing a few wrappers.

        Tom Hula

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Ken Hirsch [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
|Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 4:31 PM
|To: Tom Hula; [log in to unmask]
|Subject: Re: Re: [HP3000-L] Protos Suggestions
|
|
|Tom Hula wrote:
|
|
|> And Protos, while it does generate Cobol, is not a Cobol generator.
|> It is more like a 4GL programming tool.
|
|That's an interesting distinction.
|
|Huh?
|
|I've used Protos extensively, and I'd call it a COBOL generator.  Most of
|the Protos calls are pretty small wrappers around Image calls; they
|shouldn't be that hard to replace.
|
|
|
|

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *