Re: [open-cobol-list] Representing C enumerations & other stuff

[Patrick]

On 13-02-03 10:40 AM, vince wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> > BTW I don't what to clutter everyone's inboxes with another post.... Is
> > there any technical reason why cobc could not be written in open cobol?
> > I don't have the time or skills right now but maybe one day I could help
> > with this.
> If you look at the code it is reasonably tight and OC does NOT generate code
> anywhere close as it does make use of a lot of routines to handle tasks.
>
> This is fine for app code and is the model used in most if not all commercial
> compilers eg, Microfocus, but is far too slow for use in the runtime code.
>
> I would be more interested in converting all generated code to C++ as a first
> step to introducing OO coding abet in far future version.
>
>   
Hi Vince

So you've been coding in Cobol since before I was born and I haven't 
really written anything yet. I am not second guessing you but I was 
wondering about something. Right now, cobc looks to be about 25K lines 
of C. A runtime should be very fast and yes, maybe deploying a runtime 
built from open Cobol is not a good idea but do you have any guesses on 
how much of the 25K lines is runtime?

It looks like we have two developers Keisuke and Roger. If larger parts 
of the code base were written in a language easier to read then C, we 
might be able to get more people involved.

I personally have trouble with C's type system. Once people start 
defining their own types and using macros, it becomes pretty hard for me 
to read it.


Hi Everyone,

To update the GTK thing, I am looking into writing a GTK binding built 
on gobject introspection. Language bindings for Lua, Python, Pascal and 
others are under 5K lines using this technique. I don't think I am a 
very good C programmer but at under 5K lines I think it is within my 
competence.

-Pat