At 12:59 PM 3/8/2002 -0800, Tracy Pierce wrote:
>Not trying to start a war, simply looking for realistic suggestions.  A
>couple of posts have marginally dissed the value of each of microfocus Cobol
>and AcuCobol.  Would users of those products please elaborate, either
>privately or on-list?
>

Tracy,

I've used MF Cobol on Windows in the past, and actively use COBOL II/iX now.

MF Cobol had a very nice source file editor and very nice source level
debugger integrated with the editor. Development was very easy using these
tools.

The compiler emitted both what they called "intermediate" code, which
required a run-time interpreter to execute, and native code, which didn't,
although the native code still required run-time libraries. The native code
executed much more quickly than the intermediate code. The debugger worked
with intermediate code, not the native code. We very occasionally saw
different behavior between the intermediate code and the native code, but
MF always fixed this very quickly.

You needed to purchase a run-time license for each machine the object code
ran on.

The default MF syntax checking was much less strict than COBOL II/iX. For
example, it would not complain if a redifining group item was smaller than
the group item it redefined. Another example, it allowed you to use the SET
verb with any numeric identifier, where as COBOL II/iX will only let you
use the SET verb with an INDEX indentifier.  There are ways to tighten up
syntax checking.

I have not used Acucobol, but I would have no problems using MF Cobol.


--------------------------------
Tom Brandt
Northtech Systems, Inc.
313 N. 1st Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
http://www.northtech.com/

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