Wayne writes:
>>In a message dated 3/8/02 4:38:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>>How about:
>>
>>1. Native compilation.
>>2. No run-time costs per simultaneous execution of cobol code.
>>3. Reasonable compiler costs and ongoing maintenance.
>>4. Vendor committed to cobol.
>>5. Support of multi-platforms (hp-ux, linux for example)
>>   with multiple chips (pa-risc, ia-32, ia-64)


> And where are we going to find all five of those items?  Can
> I add #6 - Adherence to COBOL language standards?  I still want
> COBOL-2002 or whatever it will eventually be called.
> HP has #1 and #2 and AcuCorp has #3 (maybe) #4, #5, and #6.

You asked what I wanted. You didn't ask whether it existed :-)

For fun, check out Fujitsu cobol:

#1, #2, #3, #4, #6

#5 and #6 with some platforms is an issue. Here's a short breakdown
on their platforms. Check their website for more details:

windows (best), hp-ux/pa-risc (weak, older version), solaris (good)

they claim to have these project priorities:

a. update solaris to the latest windows version (synch them)
b. make a linux compiler

They say that windows and sun/solaris are their strongest markets.

I am investigating other issues (ia-64, when, 2002 std, etc) at this time. I
will post results when available.

duane "if you can't do it in cobol it's not worth doing" percox

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