[Info-vax] General Availability of 9.2 for x86-64

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2022-07-15 kl. 22:56, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 7/15/2022 4:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/15/22 15:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 10:35 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/22 09:08, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 9:02 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-07-14, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> July
>>>>>>> OpenVMS V9.2 (Limited Production Release)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Native compilers with LLVM backend code generator:
>>>>>>>       BLISS, XMACRO, C++ (Phase 1)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> July-November
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Additional native compilers
>>>>>>>       C, COBOL, and C++ (Phase 2 ? VMS Extensions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting that COBOL is a way higher priority than Fortran.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that was to be expected.
>>>>
>>>> Wonder where all of these VMS COBOL users are.
>>>
>>> You do see COBOL questions here occasionally.
>>
>> Can't remember the last time I saw one.
> 
> Google finds 3 question the last 12 months:
> 
> Brian June 10th
> Jan-Erik September 20th
> Jan-Erik August 14th
> 

Well, Cobol, as a language, is fairly stable and well documented,
so there is usually very few reasons to ask questions about Cobol
as such.

And when it comes to our business logic issues, I see very few
reasons to ask about them here. They are usually not really
strictly Cobol related technical issues anyway...

Jan-Erik.


> (I will not insult Brian by calling him a Cobol user,
> but there must be some Cobol usage involved)
> 
>>> It seems fair to assume that some portion of VMS
>>> sites has some business applications in Cobol
>>> using either index-sequential files or Rdb (or maybe
>>> even traditional Oracle).
>>
>> Being how most VMS sites still think of things like the right
>> tool for the job I would not be surprised. 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Arne