Re: gnubol: RE: CD1.7 Reasoning; interfacing to GCC back end

[Tim Josling <tej@melbpc.org.au>]

Bill,

Thanks. Much of the reasoning is as I would have expected. 

The only one that really worries me is the OO stuff. Having
written a lot of Java, I know the mindset you need is quite
different from the procedural mindset (procedural programming is
very based programming, OO programming is noun based
programming). I do think it is appropriate to fork the language.

I'm definitely *not* going to get into  debate about whether
'int' is more portable than 'COMP'. Maybe you should have
crossposted into one of the C newsgroups.

I have finished translating the document on interfacing to the
GCC back end (it's on my web site http://timjosling.homepage.com)
so tomorrow, the last day of my holidays, I intend to start on
integrating to the GCC back end.

Tim Josling

William M. Klein wrote:
> (rationale for cobol 4).

--
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.