Once upon a time, I considered writing a program to do something like that with my model railroad equipment. I eventually figured out that keeping it all in spreadsheets with gnumeric was sufficient enough. ;)
One thing that some people have difficulty with when going from
another language to COBOL is that, although the code reads like English, they are not used to needing to define all of their variables in working storage. For some reason, that just seemed logical to me.
Once upon a time, I considered writing a program to do something like tha
with my model railroad equipment. I eventually figured out that keeping i
all in spreadsheets with gnumeric was sufficient enough. ;)
Well, to be honest, part of the plan was to make a comparison like
"the cobol/mainframe way" and "the unix way", i.e. using standard shell
tools to manipulate CSV. I found out sc-im as a terminal based spreadsheet.
Ages ago, in 1999, my mentor invented the noSQL term (you can search him on wikipedia).
It was based on shell only, using sed awk and other standard
tools. I wrote an extended article about it on Linux Journal. Although
I can't recall much, I have a grasp on how powerful shell could be.
Plus, I recently joined the FreeBSD bandwagon. I truly admire how some FreeBSD have mastery on shell. If you look at the CBSD management tool
source code, feels like reading C++ instead of shell. Kudos to them.
I know, a csv/ods/xls can be as powerful today, aka "the poor man's database", but it was an excuse to learn COBOL.
Also, I am a model railway lover, although I lack the space and time
so I just had a few models of the (real) trains I used to play with
when I was a kid. My father used to work for the local railway company,
so I was not an estranger to it.
One thing that some people have difficulty with when going from
another language to COBOL is that, although the code reads like English, they are not used to needing to define all of their variables in working storage. For some reason, that just seemed logical to me.
I don't feel that as a huge issue for me. Many languages need to define
the variables at the beginning. It's just in a separate section.
I'm much more dealing now with the limits of the programming language,
as many things aren't built-in. Ex. generating a random string is not
as straightforward as I'm used to. But I get it, it was a language
that was born in the 60s, a lot of stuff just wasn't there.
Dumas Walker wrote to DARKNETGIRL <=-
I have tried BSD out a couple of times, usually just to test/play with
on a second-hand machine, but have always stuck with linux. I would
say that, too me, it seemed too similar in some ways to motivate me to change.
I've wanted to go back to a BSD for a more old-school desktop OS, been
tempted to look at NetBSD.
If you do, I am interested to hear of it. I wonder if they still support 386 CPUs. I think linux quit those.
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
Re: Re: Cobol/gnucobolI used to run NetBSD a long time ago. A friend of mine was a developer
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Dumas Walker on Wed Jun 25 2025 08:11 am
I've wanted to go back to a BSD for a more old-school desktop OS,
been tempted to look at NetBSD.
If you do, I am interested to hear of it. I wonder if they still
support 386 CPUs. I think linux quit those.
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ
[vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
If you do, I am interested to hear of it. I wonder if they still support 386 CPUs. I think linux quit those.
I Know Debian and OpenSUSE still support 32 bit processors.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:38:49 -0700
I used to run NetBSD a long time ago. A friend of mine was a developer
and kept nagging me to use it. I think I tried to go bleeding edge and always ended up with some library incompatibilities. I'm sure things
are better these days. I actually quite liked it but ended with going
back to Linux with it being more the mainstream.
Re: Re: NetBSD
By: nelgin to All on Fri Jun 27 2025 09:21 am
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:38:49 -0700
I used to run NetBSD a long time ago. A friend of mine was a
developer and kept nagging me to use it. I think I tried to go
bleeding edge and always ended up with some library
incompatibilities. I'm sure things are better these days. I
actually quite liked it but ended with going back to Linux with it
being more the mainstream.
NetBSD runs on more architectures. That's no easy trick. Pulling it
off is impressive. Using NetBSD takes time. It's another world to
learn.
NetBSD runs on more architectures. That's no easy trick. Pulling it
off is impressive. Using NetBSD takes time. It's another world to
learn.
Why are you telling me what I already know? Didn't I say I ran NetBSD?
I have a pretty good grasp on what it will run on. I find this post pointless.
If you do, I am interested to hear of it. I wonder if they still support
386 CPUs. I think linux quit those.
I Know Debian and OpenSUSE still support 32 bit processors.
But which ones. I think the kernel quit 386s.
NetBSD runs on more architectures. That's no easy trick. Pulling it
off is impressive. Using NetBSD takes time. It's another world to
learn.
Why are you telling me what I already know? Didn't I say I ran NetBSD?
I have a pretty good grasp on what it will run on. I find this post pointless.
If you don't like my style or content, you're not required to read it.
I read it as him paying you a compliment for "pulling it off" and learning it.
NetBSD runs on more architectures. That's no easy trick. Pulling it
off is impressive. Using NetBSD takes time. It's another world to
learn.
Why are you telling me what I already know? Didn't I say I ran NetBSD?
I have a pretty good grasp on what it will run on. I find this post pointless.
I read it as him paying you a compliment for "pulling it off" and learning it.
I used to run NetBSD a long time ago. A friend of mine was a developer and
kept nagging me to use it. I think I tried to go bleeding edge and always
ended up with some library incompatibilities.
NetBSD runs on more architectures. That's no easy trick. Pulling it off is
impressive. Using NetBSD takes time. It's another world to learn.
Why are you telling me what I already know? Didn't I say I ran NetBSD? I have a pretty good grasp on what it will run on. I find this post pointless.
NetBSD runs on more architectures. That's no easy trick. Pulling it
off is impressive. Using NetBSD takes time. It's another world to
learn.
Why are you telling me what I already know? Didn't I say I ran NetBSD?
I have a pretty good grasp on what it will run on. I find this post pointless.
Why are you telling me what I already know?...
I read it as him paying you a compliment for "pulling it off" and learning it.
I read it as him complimenting NetBSD on running on many architectures and goo
for them. *shrug*
Eh? Sounds to me like he was paying you a compliment ("That's no easy trick. Pulling it off is impressive").
Installing NetBSD on a PC is like installing Linux on a PC.
Re: Re: NetBSD
By: nelgin to All on Sat Jun 28 2025 01:47:34
Why are you telling me what I already know?...
Whoa, dude. Go have a Snickers. ;)
Installing NetBSD on a PC is like installing Linux on a PC.
NetBSD package management takes time to learn. It's not the same as
linux. And you need to compile a custom kernel. The default kernel is bloated with features many users don't need. Editing the kernel config often results in a failed build because you removed some essential dependency. It takes time, trial, and error to get it right.
i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
Jcurtis wrote to MRO <=-
i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
I did, to make it fit in a small memory system. Do you know what your kernel memory size is?
On modern, "normal" hardware, who gives a shit what the "kernel
memory size" is?
---i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
I did, to make it fit in a small memory system. Do you know what your kernel memory size is?
Re: Re: NetBSD
By: Jcurtis to MRO on Mon Jun 30 2025 04:42 am
i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
I did, to make it fit in a small memory system. Do you know what
your kernel memory size is?
did you intentionally edit my quote to make it say something else?
NetBSD package management takes time to learn. It's not the same as
linux. And you need to compile a custom kernel. The default kernel is bloated with features many users don't need. Editing the kernel config
often results in a failed build because you removed some essential dependency. It takes time, trial, and error to get it right.
It's not as easy as linux, if you want to do much work with it. Saying otherwise won't make it so.
Re: Re: NetBSD
By: MRO to Jcurtis on Mon Jun 30 2025 11:39 am
did you intentionally edit my quote to make it say something else?
No. I didn't add or change any words. I cut unneeded words. That's trimming, not editing.
---i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
No. I didn't add or change any words. I cut unneeded words. That's trimming, not editing.
yeah but you entirely changed my sentence to make it say something else.
why even do that?
you changed it to:
i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
Jcurtis wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: NetBSD
By: MRO to Jcurtis on Mon Jun 30 2025 08:34 pm
No. I didn't add or change any words. I cut unneeded words. That's trimming, not editing.
yeah but you entirely changed my sentence to make it say something else.
why even do that?
you changed it to:
i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
It seemed harmless to me. Sorry for any offense.
you changed it to:
i didnt need to edit the kernel config ... like years ago
It seemed harmless to me. Sorry for any offense.
Sysop: | Daphantom |
---|---|
Location: | Washington, IL. |
Users: | 2 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 13:31:49 |
Calls: | 3 |
Files: | 21,932 |
D/L today: |
4 files (165K bytes) |
Messages: | 4,129 |