[Info-vax] Learning VMS application programming

[Bugs Bunny]

On 2014-09-07, Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-09-07, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>> On 2014-09-07, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> But then this smells rather like the classic "technically feasible" 
>>> versus "prudent investment of time and effort and budget" discussion 
>>> trap, too.   Sure, inner-mode Fortran is technically feasible.  But who 
>>> would use it, how much would they pay for this, and why don't we 
>>> implement kernel-mode COBOL while we're at it?   Does VSI have other 
>>> work that'll be higher on the schedule?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> $ set response/mode=good_natured
>>
>> "kernel-mode COBOL" ??
>>
>> Oh come on Hoff, you are not expanding your horizons far enough. :-)

Oh I think he was tripping with Hendrix on this one.

>>
>> What we _really_ need is a COBOL cross compiler targetting bare metal
>> platforms so we can write all our industrial bare metal real time
>> applications in COBOL.

Ha ha ha. Report generation running directly on the metal! I like it...

>
> Believe it or not in the early 90s I read an article about a COBOL
> compiler written in COBOL, for PCs IIRC.  They saw it as a means of
> concentrating on that skill and making sure it worked under duress.
> I have no idea now what it was called or whether it was successful.

It was probably Realia or a previous or post incarnation of it. IIRC it was
written by the same guy that nearly single-handedly wrote SPITBOL and the
GNAT Ada compiler. He's done a lot of other magic too. All of it is scary
good.

>> Even back when I was using FORTRAN for system monitoring applications
>> in my school days, I knew enough even then to realise I would _never_
>> have dreamed of writing kernel mode code using it.

Yes and today despite Fortran being better than ever it still doesn't
qualify for systems programming. And I don't believe it ever will.