Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!rutgers!umd5!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!ihlpa!kai From: kai@ihlpa.ATT.COM (55664-Irwin) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: COBOL compiler for UNIX Message-ID: <6473@ihlpa.ATT.COM> Date: 9 Dec 87 04:20:30 GMT References: <1508@motown.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 51 Keywords: Ryan-McFarland, Austec, Philon, GAG!! Summary: Advanced Compiler Technics (or somthing like that) In article <1508@motown.UUCP>, jmr@motown.Allied.COM (John M. Ritter) writes: > > At Acadia University we are considering a project that would require a > > good stable COBOL environment running on the Unix operating system. If > > anyone has experience (good or bad) that they would like to share we > > would be very appreciative. Please provide specifics as to which COBOL > > environment you've tried and on which variant of UNIX it was running. > > > > Gee -- And I though I was the only one cursed by COBOL! > Actually, I *wish* I had good experience to pass along... > > I've been trying to find a COBOL compiler for about 2 years to run > on AT&T System V. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to bee such a > thing. > blah... blah > > Unfortunately, we're stuck using Ryan-McFarland's toy COBOL compiler. > It is exceptionally slow as it's a runtime interpreter. It's also > missing a few things like: SORT/MERGE, STRING, UNSTRING, > COMMUNICATIONS. Overall it is tolerable if you don't have to do any > real work. > > I wish you luck, but just wanted to let you know it ain't gonna be easy! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "I enjoy working with human beings, and John M. Ritter I've worked with a COBOL compiler by Advanced Computer Technics or somthing like that, anyway its ACT COBOL for short. Its not a fast compiler but the object code it generates flies! Bench Marked against RM-COBOL it was some 175 times faster in non I/O intensive programs, and about 25 times faster in ISAM reads. The bench marks were simple, count in a single register and tell me when you get to a thousand. I ran RM and it took about 10 sec, I then tried ACT and it returned the "I'm done" before I could get my finger off the return key. SO I decided to up the count to a million and I don't remember the exact figures off hand but I do remember 175 times faster! The I/O test was equally as simple, count to a thousand and write a record every increment, first in a flat file then in a keyed file, then read one record at a time and display on the terminal with no LF. This test net a 2500% better response than RM. I'm sure the test weren't large enough to be true, but I kinda like to think than ACT was 17500% faster than RM. I don't know how many machines this has been ported to (I used it on a 3B2 when I worked for ATTIS). MicroFocus is also 'sposed to be pretty good, but I've never tried it. Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IHP 1A332 (312) 416-4485 ...!ihlpa!kai