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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4871bb700d475964 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-11 07:16:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newscore.gigabell.net!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: an interested business-oriented programmer Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:57:02 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9g2inf$n75$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B1EED20.C607AB28@worldnet.att.net><3B1F09F8.A6521EEF@PublicPropertySoftware.com><9fo0u4$nrb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 992267823 23781 136.170.200.133 (11 Jun 2001 13:57:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jun 2001 13:57:03 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8543 Date: 2001-06-11T13:57:03+00:00 List-Id: Well, this is one of those quantitative judgements on which reasonable men can differ. How "big" is the need to interface to Cobol from Ada? What constitutes "big"? If one considers all code written in all languages, for all platforms, every day, the amount that has to interface to Cobol is probably percentage-wise pretty small. If you're the guy who has to write an Ada program to utilize some legacy Cobol code and get it done yesterday, the need for interfacing to Cobol is probably only slightly less important than the need for Oxygen to exist on the planet. Need and importance can be relative to the observer. I understand the need to interface to Cobol data as it may exist in numerous historic and/or active databases. However, that could probably be done without resorting to Ada's Cobol interface. Typically you'd have some sort of record description that you could (worst case) read/write as raw bytes and provide a translation to/from an internal Ada format. In many cases, it could probably be handled by a rep clause. Perhaps the special needs annex offers some help that makes life easier, but an Ada vendor would want to weigh the number of customers that would find this a requirement vs the cost of implementation. If they don't see much demand for it, (or even potential demand) they might choose to opt-out in order to concentrate on more pressing concerns. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wcchexpiosj.fsf@world.std.com... > "Marin David Condic" writes: > > As for interfacing to Cobol - I doubt that would be a major concern for > > someone who is looking to develop new systems for workstation/PC level > > products. There isn't exactly tons of need to interface to Cobol code in > > such an environment. > > I'm not sure that's true. Also, there is a need to interface to COBOL > *data*, in addition to programs. > > - Bob