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