Re: [open-cobol-list] 60 character identifiers

[john Culleton]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:59:13 -0400
Patrick <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Vince
> 
> The change in the allowable length is part of the Cobol 2002 standard.
> 
> Please see here:
> 
> http://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jni/courses/ProgrammignInCobol/presentation/ch02.ppt
> 
> Please go to slide 32 of 35
> 
> I have written a bit of OO in several languages and all I have ever
> used was singleton classes. I don't really think I need full blown
> objection orientation. Cobol 85 already has facilities for code reuse
> and code layouts that allow code to be private or public. I would
> however like to use naming conventions that show relationships and I
> am worried I will run out of space with 30 characters.
> 
> Thanks for responding to my post-Patrick
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/03/13 08:00 PM, vince wrote:
> >> For my needs 30 character identifier are just fine for variables.
> >> However I would like to simulate an object oriented approach and I
> >> want to use very long file names, for example:
> >>
> >> parent-child-private-doSomething.cob
> >> parent-child-public-dosomethingElse.cob
> >> etc
> >>      
> > Now some good news and some bad  ..
> >
> > Good:
> > In Linux and Windows for that matter you can have long file names
> >
> >    
> >> Is there a way to set the limit to 60?
> >>
> >> I am about 3-6 months away from being able to contribute to open
> >> Cobol development, have to learn Cobol first and read up on Bison,
> >> Flex and Autotools but I could try to tackle this if this is a
> >> good 2002 feature to implement.
> >>      
> > Bad:
> > Cobol has intrinsic limits for a range of variables that was
> > set/created in the 50's.
> >
> > Increasing it would LIMIT the compilers/platforms that are used to
> > migrate an existing source program that did not conform to a
> > reasonable level of the Cobol standards.
> >
> > Good:
> > There is an organisation based in the USA that has members around
> > the world that have an interest in redefining and creating updates
> > to the Cobol standard.
>

Frankly IMO many of the changes made in the standard since 1974 have
tended to defeat one of the chief objectives (no pun intended) of the
language. Programmer A should be able to pick up a program written by
programmer B and understand what is going on. The more features that
are added the less likely this is to be accomplished. I sometimes
worry about the standards writers. Did they ever work in a production
shop? Did they ever hear Grace Murray Hopper discuss her objectives in
designing the language? Not every change is an improvement.  

-- 
John Culleton
Wexford Press
Free list of books for self-publishers:
http://wexfordpress.net/shortlist.html
PDF e-book: "Create Book Covers with Scribus"
available at http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html