gnubol: Re: gnubol tools

["Fred Neale" <fneale@tss.com.au>]

David Nicol wrote :


> If the symbol names for intermediate terms are inherited, the C debugging
> tools will make sense.  I dunno, I always write code to produce additional
> outputs instead of fussing with debuggers, but I do not know how small
> of a minority that places me in.

I guess I come from the intermediate school - too young to have used punched
cards for coding but old enough to remember when COBOL compilers were just that
- without frills such as screen painters and debugging tools. Accordingly I tend
to use tools sparingly and tend to mix in-line debugging code with external
tools depending on the requirements of the job.

In the same way I also tend to use two other text editors as well as "vi" -
again, depending on what I have to do at the time.

The point here is that to succeed and become accepted, a programming environment
should present its users with the option of working however they feel most
comfortable and provide them with whatever is needed to make them more
efficient.

A COBOL compiler which does nothing but compile code will induce programmers to
do the bulk of their work in - say - a MicroFocus or AcuCobol environment, then
simply drop the debugged code into the Linux box for compilation and
distribution.

This would probably achieve the end result, but it's hardly the reason why we
moved to Linux and the GNU community is it?

I feel quite strongly that, at this point in its development cycle, the compiler
should be structured to allow easy addition of these tools at a later time. I
should also add that I'm not the poor sod who is writing the compiler. I don't
even envy him, but if I can help in any way.....


Regards

Fred Neale



--
This message was sent through the gnu-cobol mailing list.  To remove yourself
from this mailing list, send a message to majordomo@lusars.net with the
words "unsubscribe gnu-cobol" in the message body.  For more information on
the GNU COBOL project, send mail to gnu-cobol-owner@lusars.net.