[Info-vax] [OT] Programming languages on Unix, was: Re: [OT] Unix terminal drivers

[Dirk Munk]

Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2012-05-21, Paul Sture<paul at sture.ch>  wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:51:17 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-20, David Froble<davef at tsoft-inc.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't know much (anything) about Unix, but with the tools on VMS some
>>>> very capable input functions can be implemented.  What's important to
>>>> me is, on VMS I don't have to use "C".
>>>
>>> Strangely enough, I'm not forced to use C on Unix either. :-)
>>>
>>> My day-to-day languages on Unix include C, Ada, Python, PHP (work only;
>>> you won't catch me using it at home), and bash for shell scripting.
>>
>> I came across this rant about PHP over the weekend.
>>
>> "PHP: a fractal of bad design"
>>
>> http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>>
>>> Other languages I have used or have considered using on Unix over the
>>> years include Fortran, Java, COBOL, Pascal, Modula-2 and C++.
>>
>> I was looking for a Unix COBOL a few years ago, but came up with a blank,
>> though I will admit I was looking at free/cheap solutions.
>>
>
> The two I know about are:
>
> OpenCOBOL at http://www.opencobol.org/

OpenCobol 1.0 dates from 2008, OpenCobol 1.1 beta dates from 2007. No 
updates in 4 years? Seems a rather dead project to me.


>
> and
>
> TinyCOBOL at http://tiny-cobol.sourceforge.net/
>
> TinyCOBOL development has now ended. COBOL is a language I considered
> using on Unix but never actually did, so I don't know what quality and
> functionality the compilers possess.
>
> I've found the following link which should give you a overview for the
> other languages on my list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compilers
>
> Modula-2 is not on that list however, and can be found at:
>
> http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/homepage.html
>
> That is the other language I considered, but never used so I also don't
> know the quality of the port. Be aware that it's based on what is now
> a old version of gcc (4.1.2).
>
> For Pascal, the GNU Pascal port is seriously dated, so you are probably
> far better off with the Free Pascal port. It's been many years since I
> last used either of them however, so my knowledge about them is not
> current.
>
> Simon.
>