From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FAKE_REPLY_C,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-23 12:06:53 PST
Message-ID: <40117E10.A623D228@notes.udayton.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:03:28 -0500
From: Leon Winslow <leon.winslow@notes.udayton.edu>
Reply-To: no, such, address.con
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.238.72.198
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.238.72.198
X-Trace: post.usenet.com 1074888351 131.238.72.198 (23 Jan 2004 14:05:51
 -0600)
Organization: Usenet.com http://www.usenet.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
 The #1 Usenet Service on the Planet!
X-Comments: This message was posted through Usenet.com's,
 FREE  publicly accessible Usenet Server   -  "post.usenet.com"
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Usenet.com does not condone, nor support,
  spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing
 illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!!
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to <abuse@usenet.com>
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers,
 INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!news-out.superfeed.net!post.usenet.com!not-for-mail
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4741
Date: 2004-01-23T15:03:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

I'm interested in knowing why no one has mentioned that 40 years ago the
COBAL language included a statement to specify the machine and/or
operating system for the executable code.  If you wanted the program to
run on a UNIX box, you essentially entered UNIX at the head of the
program; if you wanted it to run on a Windows box you entered Windows.
The rest of the program remained the same.  (Its been a long time since
I used this feature so I don't remember the exact syntax.  Maybe someone
else knows?)

Of course, very few compilers actually implemented more than one
option.  If you wanted a different one, you usually needed a different
compiler.

The important feature however is that the rest of the program was
independent of the machine that would execute the program.  If COBAL
could implement this 40 years ago, why can't we try something similar?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
                      http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=