On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 8:37:43 AM UTC+13, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-12-10, Arne Vajhøj <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> > On 12/10/2021 8:11 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> >>> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
> >>
> >> Not my call to make. I no longer have a dog in the fight.
> >> If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
> >> Obviously, many already have not. I think the current owners are a
> >> better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
> >> to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
> >> of whether or not to stay. And assume all the risks that entails.
> >
> > The risk seems pretty low to me.
> >
> > The x86-64 port is almost complete that means new and cheap
> > hardware available for many years to come.
> >
>
> It's not the hardware that's the problem in the minds of many people.
>
> It's the fact that VMS is the road less travelled these days and it
> comes with restrictions (time-limited production licences) that many
> find unacceptable and which is not a problem in what these days are
> more mainstream operating systems.
>
> IOW, when asking people to choose VMS, you are asking them to go
> down the road less travelled _and_ you are asking them to choose
> a much more restrictive licence that they would not have to do if
> they stayed with a mainstream operating system.
>
> Now imagine how that looks in the eyes of a upper manager that has
> no real emotional bond to VMS.

OpenVMS being obscure with a restrictive license isn't even the biggest
problem really.

Why pay for expensive fixed term licenses to an obscure proprietary
operating system you'll have difficulty supporting when most of the
software you're wanting to run was designed for Linux?

Unless it gets open-sourced I don't think its realistic for VSI to increase
adoption much beyond companies currently running older HPE releases.

And if the total number of OpenVMS users is only declining those fixed
term licenses are going to be a real problem some day.

In article <6bee4a78-ea32-47fb-8637-3dbb45bd25een@googlegroups.com>,
David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> writes:

> Unless it gets open-sourced I don't think its realistic for VSI to increase
> adoption much beyond companies currently running older HPE releases.

What will VSI have as income if it is open-sourced? Only support?
Probably not viable.

And the VMS way of doing things and the open-source way are not always
compatible.

On 12/13/2021 3:17 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/12/21 7:34 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 20:12, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>>>> of ethics and try to do the right thing. In the real world though,
>>>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>>>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>>>
>>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>>> alive.
>>>>
>>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>>> own choices...
>>>
>>> I don't think there is much ethical dilemma here.
>>>
>>> There should be no doubt that following the law is the etical
>>> solution here.
>>>
>>> Arne
>>>
>>
>> Well, that's my whole point, but if no license is available from the
>> original vendor, or they have ceased to exist, the user should stop
>> using the product, irrespective of the effect on their business ?.
>>
>> Imho, it's a gross breach of good faith and trust for a vendor to
>> provide no means of continuance in such cases...
>>
>
> Companies come and go. Most don't want to fail, but it happens.
> But I hardly think it is their fault that a customer doesn't take
> appropriate actions to protect their future. Back in my mainframe
> days we used to have COOP plans. Now, they were more targeted at
> disasters like 9/11 but the idea is sound for even less disastrous
> situations. If one sees a possibility (no matter how vague) of a
> situation that could result in their demise they really should make
> the effort to plan for it. And those plans should be updated and
> maybe even movced up in priority if the vagueness seems to be fading
> and the threat seems closer.

I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who will
never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to customers.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 12/13/21 22:53, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 3:17 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/12/21 7:34 PM, chris wrote:
>>> On 12/10/21 20:12, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>>>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>>>>> of ethics and try to do the right thing. In the real world though,
>>>>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>>>>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for
>>>>> historical
>>>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>>>> alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>>>> own choices...
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there is much ethical dilemma here.
>>>>
>>>> There should be no doubt that following the law is the etical
>>>> solution here.
>>>>
>>>> Arne
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's my whole point, but if no license is available from the
>>> original vendor, or they have ceased to exist, the user should stop
>>> using the product, irrespective of the effect on their business ?.
>>>
>>> Imho, it's a gross breach of good faith and trust for a vendor to
>>> provide no means of continuance in such cases...
>>>
>>
>> Companies come and go. Most don't want to fail, but it happens.
>> But I hardly think it is their fault that a customer doesn't take
>> appropriate actions to protect their future. Back in my mainframe
>> days we used to have COOP plans. Now, they were more targeted at
>> disasters like 9/11 but the idea is sound for even less disastrous
>> situations. If one sees a possibility (no matter how vague) of a
>> situation that could result in their demise they really should make
>> the effort to plan for it. And those plans should be updated and
>> maybe even movced up in priority if the vagueness seems to be fading
>> and the threat seems closer.
>
> I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who
> will never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility
> to customers.
>

Absolutely. As I said, all relationships in life depend on trust and a
shared understanding. Not all of that can be specified in contract,
which is so often used these days as a get out of jail card by vendors.

One of the reasons why Sun Micro were so successful was that they did
not nitpick about the detail, nor were they predatory over licensing.
They made quite enough money on the back of technical excellence and
better performance. Give and take between customer and vendor is
good for business. Currently, the open source model of free to use
and evaluate, then make a business from support seems to be working
very well. ie: give something away, goodwill etc, to score a much
larger chunk of real value business. Satisfied customers come back
with repeat business and maybe even help spread the word.

Seems obvious to me, but keep repeating the same mistakes of the
last century, learning nothing from them, suggests tunnel vision
and even stupidity. This is 2021, not 1990...

Chris

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 10:45:50 AM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <6bee4a78-ea32-47fb...@googlegroups.com>,
> David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Unless it gets open-sourced I don't think its realistic for VSI to increase
> > adoption much beyond companies currently running older HPE releases.
> What will VSI have as income if it is open-sourced? Only support?
> Probably not viable.

What will VSI have as income if they're not winning over Linux/Windows users
and their existing customers slowly leave?

> And the VMS way of doing things and the open-source way are not always
> compatible.

At the same time it was likely the only chance VMS had at some form of long-term survival.

HPE OpenVMS licenses can only be transferred with HPEs permission. VSI licenses
expire. The continued legal availability of OpenVMS in any form depends on HPE
willing to process license transfers and VSI remaining in business to issue new licenses.

Many proprietary operating systems have been down this path already. The outcome
is always the same - demand gets to the point where its no longer commercially viable
and no more OpenVMS.

Solaris is the only one I can think of that took a different path. Oracle seems to be
only doing maintenance on it now but that doesn't really matter. Sun released the
source code back in 2008. After the Oracle acquisition the community forked OpenSolaris
as Illumos, got it building building and continues to maintain it today. Joyent/Samsung
pay a few people work on it as they use it as the basis for some cloud platform. The
open-source descendant of Solaris will be around for as long as there is anyone with an
interest in running it.

On 12/13/2021 3:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/13/21 3:44 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 3:26 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/13/21 1:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Those that have a very large problem would not be fine.
>>>>
>>>> Of course IRS could get the same mid-size capability for way
>>>> less money on a different platform, but porting is probably
>>>> expensive. And they do not have any competitors to worry about! :-)
>>>
>>> Expense wasn't the problem.  They have pretty deep pockets. :-)
>>> The problem was the ability to accomplish a port given the constraints
>>> they run under.
>>
>> It is a hard thing to port. The CPU/memory/disk requirement are
>> mid size. But the requirements are very large.
>>
>> US Tax rules supposedly consist of 2500 pages of law and 9000
>> pages of regulations. That is 29 volumes of 400 pages. Hard
>> problem.
>>
>> And anybody think that they would simplify rules to make a
>> port easier or even just freeze rules during a port??
>
> You missed the big one.  No down time.  The new system would have
> to go into operation functioning perfectly from not just day one,
> but from minute one.  It's a 24 hours a day 365 days a year (except
> every four years when it is a 366 day) job :-).  How many large
> scale porting projects have you seen accomplish that?

Typical mainframe to distributed migrations change it from
like 20 hours of operation to 24 hours operation, so that
is typical a significant improvement when migrating. New
systems are practically always 24x7 without the nightly
batch jobs.

But I do not know IRS service availability.

Arne

On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Computer Science never liked Cobol - they were on the Algol
>> and Pascal wagon back in the 60's and 70's.
>
> There was no CS in the 60's and only later in the 70's  It was
> just a sideline for math departments.

Purdue University Computer Science Department was established in 1962.

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/history/index.html

>   In any event, most CS
> departments had two tracks CS and CIS.  CS played with Unix
> and C and CIS was COBOL, PL/1 (in IBM dominated areas like
> Marist College) and even some RPG and 360 BAL.

Somebody had to teach languages used.

>> Lesser academic educations teaching programming typical
>> dropped Cobol in the 90's due to lack of demand.
>
> We kept a COBOL course on the books well into the 90's but it
> was never offered.  COBOL was used in a mandatory (for both CS
> and CIS programs) course, Until the early 2000's.

That was later than most places, but ...

>   It was done
> using DEC COBOL until the day they made me remove the last VMS
> machines from my data center.  It was not unsuitability that
> resulted in these changes it was politics.  Both VMS and COBOL
> were seen as "legacy". Something the students shouldn't even
> be introduced to.  VMS was easier to get rid of because all
> they had to do was tell me to get rid of the hardware.  COBOL
> took a little longer (and a lot more work) because the course
> using it had to be redone.
>
>> Cobol first got OO features in 2002.
>>
>> It is pretty obvious from the timeline that lack of interest
>> in OO Cobol was not the reason for Cobol's missing presence
>> in education.
>
> Really?  Then where do you assign the blame?

Lack of demand for the skill.

Most students know somebody in the industry and if they hear
that companies hire C, C++, Java, Delphi, VB6 (late 90's!) then
they do not go for Cobol. Most students want to work with the
new growing languages not with old declining languages.

The fact that there may a great career in old languages
because old code tend to continue running for decade after decade
rarely appeals to students.

And that some of the then growing languages went in decline pretty
quickly (Delphi and VB6 turned out to decline faster than Cobol!)
was also not considered.

>> Computer science did push OOP back in the 80's and 90's. But
>> the industry was very much involved as well (Apple: object-pascal
>> and objective-c; Borland: later Turbo Pascal, Delphi;
>> Microsoft: C++; SUN: C++, Java). And even some of the
>> academic research was funded by the industry (AT&T, Xerox etc.), so
>> OO is not an academic thing.
>
> It started there and once they stopped teaching non-OOP pardigms
> what did the people coming out to places like AT&T, Apple, Xerox,
> etc. know other than OOP?

When they did their research back in the 80's everybody knew
procedural programming. They wanted to do something differently.

>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>
> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time.  I am just
> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
> it.  I still do COBOL.  Mostly just for fun, but it is still
> interesting.  You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.

Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
in it.

Arne

In article <sp8itv$nn5$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who will
> never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to customers.

A vendor has to live up to the contract and should not do anything
illegal. No more, no less.

Moral responsibility? Who gets to define "moral"? That open's
Pandora's box.

On 12/14/21 05:35, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article<sp8itv$nn5$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who will
>> never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to customers.
>
> A vendor has to live up to the contract and should not do anything
> illegal. No more, no less.
>
> Moral responsibility? Who gets to define "moral"? That open's
> Pandora's box.
>

It's the intangibles like that that form part of the establishment of
trust in a business relationship...

Chris

Hi,

micro fiche scans of VAX/VMS 4.0/4.1 source listings are now published at

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/vax/microfiche/vms-source-listings/AH-BT13A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.0_SRC_LST_MCRF/AH-BT13A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.0_SRC_LST_MCRF/

The update to V4.1 is at

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/vax/microfiche/vms-source-listings/AH-BT13A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.0_SRC_LST_MCRF/AH-EF71A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.1_SRC_LST_MCRF_UPD/

kind regards,
Joerg

On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Computer Science never liked Cobol - they were on the Algol
>>> and Pascal wagon back in the 60's and 70's.
>>
>> There was no CS in the 60's and only later in the 70's  It was
>> just a sideline for math departments.
>
> Purdue University Computer Science Department was established in 1962.
>
> https://www.cs.purdue.edu/history/index.html
>

I am sure there were a few early adopters. But but In 1980 I
worked at West Point. They had a Geography & Computer Science
Department. When I later moved to the University of Scranton
their CS department had started as courses offered by the Math
Department and all of the origin CS faculty came from moved from
the Math Department.

>>                                      In any event, most CS
>> departments had two tracks CS and CIS.  CS played with Unix
>> and C and CIS was COBOL, PL/1 (in IBM dominated areas like
>> Marist College) and even some RPG and 360 BAL.
>
> Somebody had to teach languages used.

Exactly. Until they decided not to teach the languages used and
started trying to force a change to the languages being used. In
the case of COBOL, they failed. BUt they still won't teach it.
There are other legacy languages still in use that are not taught.
An ideal opportunity for trade schools to step up, fill the gap
and save students a fortune in un-needed debt.

>
>>> Lesser academic educations teaching programming typical
>>> dropped Cobol in the 90's due to lack of demand.
>>
>> We kept a COBOL course on the books well into the 90's but it
>> was never offered.  COBOL was used in a mandatory (for both CS
>> and CIS programs) course, Until the early 2000's.
>
> That was later than most places, but ...

Yes, it was. I did the same thing with VMS but one can't swim
upstream forever.

>
>>                                                It was done
>> using DEC COBOL until the day they made me remove the last VMS
>> machines from my data center.  It was not unsuitability that
>> resulted in these changes it was politics.  Both VMS and COBOL
>> were seen as "legacy". Something the students shouldn't even
>> be introduced to.  VMS was easier to get rid of because all
>> they had to do was tell me to get rid of the hardware.  COBOL
>> took a little longer (and a lot more work) because the course
>> using it had to be redone.
>>
>>> Cobol first got OO features in 2002.
>>>
>>> It is pretty obvious from the timeline that lack of interest
>>> in OO Cobol was not the reason for Cobol's missing presence
>>> in education.
>>
>> Really?  Then where do you assign the blame?
>
> Lack of demand for the skill.

Except that the demand is still there. General Dynamics (who
maintain the DOD EMR I mentioned) once offered internships for
undergrad students because they were finding it necessary to
train their own COBOL programmers. They would take any student
who had at least the basic undergrad intro course and the ad
claimed they would teach them COBOL on the job. I can tell
you that the some of the faculty where I was told the students
not to apply.

>
> Most students know somebody in the industry and if they hear
> that companies hire C, C++, Java, Delphi, VB6 (late 90's!) then
> they do not go for Cobol. Most students want to work with the
> new growing languages not with old declining languages.

And, thus, miss out on some very good opportunities. Those
government positions I mentioned offer, as well as good pay,
one of the best retirement plans in existence, very good health
care and more time off than most private businesses. As well
as long term stability. It is virtually impossible to lose
a government job unless you opt to quit. I can give you some
really good anecdotes to support that, too, from personal
experience. :-)

>
> The fact that there may a great career in old languages
> because old code tend to continue running for decade after decade
> rarely appeals to students.

Again, my experience differs. I used to sit and chat with my
students in the labs and many of them verified the things I
was telling them about COBOL. But, sadly, they were still
left with no training and most people will take the job they
know how to do over the one they don't. Even if they really
could learn it easily.

>
> And that some of the then growing languages went in decline pretty
> quickly (Delphi and VB6 turned out to decline faster than Cobol!)
> was also not considered.

So it is with most language du jour. There are still a lot of
Fortran jobs out there, too. But like COBOL you need to search
for them.

>
>>> Computer science did push OOP back in the 80's and 90's. But
>>> the industry was very much involved as well (Apple: object-pascal
>>> and objective-c; Borland: later Turbo Pascal, Delphi;
>>> Microsoft: C++; SUN: C++, Java). And even some of the
>>> academic research was funded by the industry (AT&T, Xerox etc.), so
>>> OO is not an academic thing.
>>
>> It started there and once they stopped teaching non-OOP pardigms
>> what did the people coming out to places like AT&T, Apple, Xerox,
>> etc. know other than OOP?
>
> When they did their research back in the 80's everybody knew
> procedural programming. They wanted to do something differently.

Even if it didn't really apply to the needed tasks.

>
>>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>>
>> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time.  I am just
>> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
>> it.  I still do COBOL.  Mostly just for fun, but it is still
>> interesting.  You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
>> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.
>
> Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
> enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
> in it.

Exactly. I have done some COBOL stuff for Rosetta Code and
it's really fun. May do another one today. Of course, I also
do DIBOL-11, MACRO-11, Ratfor and Basic09. And, I am thinking
of doing some Logo (I have gotten back into Logo because my 8
year old grandson wants to learn "coding" and Logo is an ideal
language for teaching the basics to someone his age). If there
was an available PL/I compiler I would probably do a bunch in
that, too. The fun of being a dinosaur.

bill

On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>                                                It was done
>>> using DEC COBOL until the day they made me remove the last VMS
>>> machines from my data center.  It was not unsuitability that
>>> resulted in these changes it was politics.  Both VMS and COBOL
>>> were seen as "legacy". Something the students shouldn't even
>>> be introduced to.  VMS was easier to get rid of because all
>>> they had to do was tell me to get rid of the hardware.  COBOL
>>> took a little longer (and a lot more work) because the course
>>> using it had to be redone.
>>>
>>>> Cobol first got OO features in 2002.
>>>>
>>>> It is pretty obvious from the timeline that lack of interest
>>>> in OO Cobol was not the reason for Cobol's missing presence
>>>> in education.
>>>
>>> Really?  Then where do you assign the blame?
>>
>> Lack of demand for the skill.
>
> Except that the demand is still there.

There are some demand but pretty small compared to the entire market.

>   General Dynamics (who
> maintain the DOD EMR I mentioned) once offered internships for
> undergrad students because they were finding it necessary to
> train their own COBOL programmers.  They would take any student
> who had at least the basic undergrad intro course and the ad
> claimed they would teach them COBOL on the job.  I can tell
> you that the some of the faculty where I was told the students
> not to apply.

It happens occasionally that companies train people in Cobol.

But it is like a dozen here and a dozen there.

Python, Java, C# get hundreds of thousands every year.

>> Most students know somebody in the industry and if they hear
>> that companies hire C, C++, Java, Delphi, VB6 (late 90's!) then
>> they do not go for Cobol. Most students want to work with the
>> new growing languages not with old declining languages.
>
> And, thus, miss out on some very good opportunities.  Those
> government positions I mentioned offer, as well as good pay,
> one of the best retirement plans in existence, very good health
> care and more time off than most private businesses.  As well
> as long term stability.  It is virtually impossible to lose
> a government job unless you opt to quit.  I can give you some
> really good anecdotes to support that, too, from personal
> experience.  :-)

Yes. But it is generally considered more fun to work on something
that is growing than to maintain something that is considered
doomed - even if it realistically will take decades to get off the
old stuff.

>> The fact that there may a great career in old languages
>> because old code tend to continue running for decade after decade
>> rarely appeals to students.
>
> Again, my experience differs.  I used to sit and chat with my
> students in the labs and many of them verified the things I
> was telling them about COBOL.  But, sadly, they were still
> left with no training and most people will take the job they
> know how to do over the one they don't.  Even if they really
> could learn it easily.

If students wanted to learn Cobol they would learn Cobol.

Neither ASP classic nor PHP was ever big in education but millions
managed to learn them anyway.

>> And that some of the then growing languages went in decline pretty
>> quickly (Delphi and VB6 turned out to decline faster than Cobol!)
>> was also not considered.
>
> So it is with most language du jour.

Some thrive long term - some declines after relative few years.

C++, Java, Python, C# turned long term viable.

Delphi, VB6 declined quickly.

We don't know yet how Ruby, Scala, Rust, Go, Kotlin will do.

In 10-15 years we will know.

>   There are still a lot of
> Fortran jobs out there, too. But like COBOL you need to search
> for them.

One need to search to fine the rare stuff.

Arne

On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>>>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>>>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>>>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>>>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>>>
>>> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time.  I am just
>>> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
>>> it.  I still do COBOL.  Mostly just for fun, but it is still
>>> interesting.  You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
>>> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.
>>
>> Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
>> enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
>> in it.
>
> Exactly.  I  have done some COBOL stuff for Rosetta Code and
> it's really fun.  May do another one today.  Of course, I also
> do DIBOL-11, MACRO-11, Ratfor and Basic09.  And, I am thinking
> of doing some Logo (I have gotten back into Logo because my 8
> year old grandson wants to learn "coding" and Logo is an ideal
> language for teaching the basics to someone his age).  If there
> was an available PL/I compiler I would probably do a bunch in
> that, too.  The fun of being a dinosaur.

Kednos had PL/I for VAX and Alpha and a hobbyist program.

Maybe you can get a kit and a license - I think it was said
that even though the business is closed then a hobbyist
license could still be issued.

Or you could give http://www.iron-spring.com/ a try on
Linux.

Arne

In article <spa1bp$1ifa$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris
<chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:

> On 12/14/21 05:35, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > In article<sp8itv$nn5$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> > <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >
> >> I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who will
> >> never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to customers.
> >
> > A vendor has to live up to the contract and should not do anything
> > illegal. No more, no less.
> >
> > Moral responsibility? Who gets to define "moral"? That open's
> > Pandora's box.
>
> It's the intangibles like that that form part of the establishment of
> trust in a business relationship...

Sure, but your options are to continue to do business or cease to do
business, not claim some moral right to do something.

On 12/14/21 9:59 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>                                                It was done
>>>> using DEC COBOL until the day they made me remove the last VMS
>>>> machines from my data center.  It was not unsuitability that
>>>> resulted in these changes it was politics.  Both VMS and COBOL
>>>> were seen as "legacy". Something the students shouldn't even
>>>> be introduced to.  VMS was easier to get rid of because all
>>>> they had to do was tell me to get rid of the hardware.  COBOL
>>>> took a little longer (and a lot more work) because the course
>>>> using it had to be redone.
>>>>
>>>>> Cobol first got OO features in 2002.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is pretty obvious from the timeline that lack of interest
>>>>> in OO Cobol was not the reason for Cobol's missing presence
>>>>> in education.
>>>>
>>>> Really?  Then where do you assign the blame?
>>>
>>> Lack of demand for the skill.
>>
>> Except that the demand is still there.
>
> There are some demand but pretty small compared to the entire market.

Yeah, it takes a lot of people to write that next version of
Candy Crush.

>
>>                                       General Dynamics (who
>> maintain the DOD EMR I mentioned) once offered internships for
>> undergrad students because they were finding it necessary to
>> train their own COBOL programmers.  They would take any student
>> who had at least the basic undergrad intro course and the ad
>> claimed they would teach them COBOL on the job.  I can tell
>> you that the some of the faculty where I was told the students
>> not to apply.
>
> It happens occasionally that companies train people in Cobol.
>
> But it is like a dozen here and a dozen there.
>
> Python, Java, C# get hundreds of thousands every year.

I have seen a lot of internships offered. I used to search for
them for my students (still do, actually). I have never seen
one that offered to train the intern specifically in any of
those languages.

>
>>> Most students know somebody in the industry and if they hear
>>> that companies hire C, C++, Java, Delphi, VB6 (late 90's!) then
>>> they do not go for Cobol. Most students want to work with the
>>> new growing languages not with old declining languages.
>>
>> And, thus, miss out on some very good opportunities.  Those
>> government positions I mentioned offer, as well as good pay,
>> one of the best retirement plans in existence, very good health
>> care and more time off than most private businesses.  As well
>> as long term stability.  It is virtually impossible to lose
>> a government job unless you opt to quit.  I can give you some
>> really good anecdotes to support that, too, from personal
>> experience.  :-)
>
> Yes. But it is generally considered more fun to work on something
> that is growing than to maintain something that is considered
> doomed - even if it realistically will take decades to get off the
> old stuff.

A shame when you figure these jobs offer a lot more stability than
most of the language du jour jobs.

>
>>> The fact that there may a great career in old languages
>>> because old code tend to continue running for decade after decade
>>> rarely appeals to students.
>>
>> Again, my experience differs.  I used to sit and chat with my
>> students in the labs and many of them verified the things I
>> was telling them about COBOL.  But, sadly, they were still
>> left with no training and most people will take the job they
>> know how to do over the one they don't.  Even if they really
>> could learn it easily.
>
> If students wanted to learn Cobol they would learn Cobol.

Sadly, most students never learn to think for themselves and when
it is drilled into them repeatedly not to do someting even if the
reasons given ar invalid they tend to follow like the lemmings
college is preparing them to be.

>
> Neither ASP classic nor PHP was ever big in education but millions
> managed to learn them anyway.

Don't know about over there, but PHP was very big over here.
Entire courses built around programming in PHP. Often called
"Rapid Prototyping" or something similar and being the antithesis
of true software engineering.

>
>>> And that some of the then growing languages went in decline pretty
>>> quickly (Delphi and VB6 turned out to decline faster than Cobol!)
>>> was also not considered.
>>
>> So it is with most language du jour.
>
> Some thrive long term - some declines after relative few years.
>
> C++, Java, Python, C# turned long term viable.
>
> Delphi, VB6 declined quickly.
>
> We don't know yet how Ruby, Scala, Rust, Go, Kotlin will do.
>
> In 10-15 years we will know.
>
>>                                      There are still a lot of
>> Fortran jobs out there, too. But like COBOL you need to search
>> for them.
>
> One need to search to fine the rare stuff.

I can think of a couple reasons for that. One, stability. People
aren't leaving those jobs every 2-3 years. Two, they don't use
the web job sites because they don't want to have to sort thru 500
totally unqualified applicants with inflated resumes to find that
one needle in the haystack. (I used to have to handle the first
pass thru resumes and I have seen stuff that just makes you laugh!)
With IBM Mainframes a lot of the searching is done thru places like
the User Group. I am sure VMS used to be the same way before the
demise of DECUS. And, there are still a lot of companies that just
refuse to waste time with places like Indeed and Monster. You will
see the periodic job with them there, but they didn't put it there.
The job site got it thru web scraping. (Why do you think most of
jobs on all these sites are the same?)

bill

On 12/14/21 10:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>>>>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>>>>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>>>>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>>>>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time.  I am just
>>>> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
>>>> it.  I still do COBOL.  Mostly just for fun, but it is still
>>>> interesting.  You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
>>>> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.
>>>
>>> Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
>>> enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
>>> in it.
>>
>> Exactly.  I  have done some COBOL stuff for Rosetta Code and
>> it's really fun.  May do another one today.  Of course, I also
>> do DIBOL-11, MACRO-11, Ratfor and Basic09.  And, I am thinking
>> of doing some Logo (I have gotten back into Logo because my 8
>> year old grandson wants to learn "coding" and Logo is an ideal
>> language for teaching the basics to someone his age).  If there
>> was an available PL/I compiler I would probably do a bunch in
>> that, too.  The fun of being a dinosaur.
>
> Kednos had PL/I for VAX and Alpha and a hobbyist program.

Kednos is gone as far as I know. And they didn't just release
the compiler when they left. Wonder what Dave things of that?

>
> Maybe you can get a kit and a license - I think it was said
> that even though the business is closed then a hobbyist
> license could still be issued.

And, that also assumes one has a usable VMS system. Other than my
VAX which is not going to be running much longer I have had very
little luck getting an Alpha version up as I have no hardware and
the emulators (at least the free ones) haven't worked well for me.

But I may look into that. Haven't done any serious PL/I for
40 years but it was fun when I did.

>
> Or you could give http://www.iron-spring.com/ a try on
> Linux.

Didn't know about this but a quick look shows a beta that
is, at least so far, incomplete. But then, it's free and
you get what you pay for.

Guess I'll stick with the languages I have more support for
at the moment. Just found a few more tasks that look like fun.

bill

On 12/14/21 15:07, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article<spa1bp$1ifa$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris
> <chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/14/21 05:35, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article<sp8itv$nn5$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>>> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who will
>>>> never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to customers.
>>>
>>> A vendor has to live up to the contract and should not do anything
>>> illegal. No more, no less.
>>>
>>> Moral responsibility? Who gets to define "moral"? That open's
>>> Pandora's box.
>>
>> It's the intangibles like that that form part of the establishment of
>> trust in a business relationship...
>
> Sure, but your options are to continue to do business or cease to do
> business, not claim some moral right to do something.
>

No one is suggesting that it does. The law is only relevant insofar
as it is enforced, but that's a different kettle of fish from the
ethical considerations and matters of implied trust between vendor
and client.

The number of people who continue to make excuses for shoddy
treatment from vendors never ceases to amaze me...

Chris

On 12/14/2021 10:29 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/14/21 10:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>>>>>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>>>>>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>>>>>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>>>>>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time.  I am just
>>>>> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
>>>>> it.  I still do COBOL.  Mostly just for fun, but it is still
>>>>> interesting.  You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
>>>>> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.
>>>>
>>>> Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
>>>> enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
>>>> in it.
>>>
>>> Exactly.  I  have done some COBOL stuff for Rosetta Code and
>>> it's really fun.  May do another one today.  Of course, I also
>>> do DIBOL-11, MACRO-11, Ratfor and Basic09.  And, I am thinking
>>> of doing some Logo (I have gotten back into Logo because my 8
>>> year old grandson wants to learn "coding" and Logo is an ideal
>>> language for teaching the basics to someone his age).  If there
>>> was an available PL/I compiler I would probably do a bunch in
>>> that, too.  The fun of being a dinosaur.
>>
>> Kednos had PL/I for VAX and Alpha and a hobbyist program.
>
> Kednos is gone as far as I know.  And they didn't just release
> the compiler when they left.  Wonder what Dave things of that?
>
>>
>> Maybe you can get a kit and a license - I think it was said
>> that even though the business is closed then a hobbyist
>> license could still be issued.
>
> And, that also assumes one has a usable VMS system.  Other than my
> VAX which is not going to be running much longer I have had very
> little luck getting an Alpha version up as I have no hardware and
> the emulators (at least the free ones) haven't worked well for me.

VMS PL/I certainly requires VMS.

:-)

Emulator has worked for me, but I believe Alpha's can be had relative
cheap.

But then you need to track down the license.

> But I may look into that. Haven't done any serious PL/I for
> 40 years but it was fun when I did.

There are lots of rare languages to look at.

GNU Modula-2 runs great on Linux.

>> Or you could give http://www.iron-spring.com/ a try on
>> Linux.
>
> Didn't know about this but a quick look shows  a beta that
> is, at least so far, incomplete.  But then, it's free and
> you get what you pay for.

Too bad that Raincode only offer their Cobol compiler for
free and not their PL/I compiler.

Arne

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 9:34:22 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> Computer Science never liked Cobol - they were on the Algol
> >> and Pascal wagon back in the 60's and 70's.
> >
> > There was no CS in the 60's and only later in the 70's It was
> > just a sideline for math departments.
>
> Purdue University Computer Science Department was established in 1962.
>
> https://www.cs.purdue.edu/history/index.html
>

Go Boilers! I'm a Purdue grad, 1981. I took a operation system course from Peter Denning. My first compiler course was taught by Doug Comer. I graded papers for Walter Tichy. [All are well-known names especially Peter Denning]

On 12/14/2021 6:37 AM, Joerg Hoppe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> micro fiche scans of VAX/VMS 4.0/4.1 source listings are now published at
>
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/vax/microfiche/vms-source-listings/AH-BT13A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.0_SRC_LST_MCRF/AH-BT13A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.0_SRC_LST_MCRF/
>
> The update to V4.1 is at
>
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/vax/microfiche/vms-source-listings/AH-BT13A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.0_SRC_LST_MCRF/AH-EF71A-SE__VAX-VMS_V4.1_SRC_LST_MCRF_UPD/
>
> kind regards,
> Joerg
>

Thanks Joerg! I did my periodic update to my Bitsavers copy last night and noticed them downloading. It was a pleasant surprise.

--
John H. Reinhardt

I was staying out of this nonsense, since I've long ago determined that no one
will convince Arne of something he doesn't want to acknowledge. But this gem ..

On 12/14/2021 10:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> Sadly, most students never learn to think for themselves and when
> it is drilled into them repeatedly not to do someting even if the
> reasons given ar invalid they tend to follow like the lemmings
> college is preparing them to be.

When my son was ready to go to college, he asked me, what job(s) should I learn?
I told him he was not going to college to learn a job. That he was going to
college to expand his horizons, to learn to think, and to question. That is the
true job of higher education, to teach young people that the world is a bit
wider than what they knew growing up. To be able to think for themselves. As
an example, he came home one day and declared "the only difference between
Christianity and today's cults is that Christianity is 2000 years old." Now I'm
sure that came from some know-it-all professor, but, the key was that my son was
exposed to a new concept, and then had to think about it.

Higher education is only as good as those at the point of contact, the
professors, and they are only human, with their egos, their concepts, and the
self assurance that they are the pinnacle of human evolution. All too often
their students accept that concept.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 12/14/2021 10:29 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/14/21 10:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>>>>>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>>>>>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>>>>>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>>>>>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time. I am just
>>>>> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
>>>>> it. I still do COBOL. Mostly just for fun, but it is still
>>>>> interesting. You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
>>>>> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.
>>>>
>>>> Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
>>>> enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
>>>> in it.
>>>
>>> Exactly. I have done some COBOL stuff for Rosetta Code and
>>> it's really fun. May do another one today. Of course, I also
>>> do DIBOL-11, MACRO-11, Ratfor and Basic09. And, I am thinking
>>> of doing some Logo (I have gotten back into Logo because my 8
>>> year old grandson wants to learn "coding" and Logo is an ideal
>>> language for teaching the basics to someone his age). If there
>>> was an available PL/I compiler I would probably do a bunch in
>>> that, too. The fun of being a dinosaur.
>>
>> Kednos had PL/I for VAX and Alpha and a hobbyist program.
>
> Kednos is gone as far as I know. And they didn't just release
> the compiler when they left. Wonder what Dave things of that?

Tell me how much you're going to think of computers when you're dying? Tom has
left the building, but I've got to wonder, if he had the time would he have
gifted his product to the rest of us. Dave sure would do so. That's what Dave
"thinks" (not things) of that.

>> Maybe you can get a kit and a license - I think it was said
>> that even though the business is closed then a hobbyist
>> license could still be issued.
>
> And, that also assumes one has a usable VMS system. Other than my
> VAX which is not going to be running much longer I have had very
> little luck getting an Alpha version up as I have no hardware and
> the emulators (at least the free ones) haven't worked well for me.

Bullshit! At one time I offered you an Alpha. You couldn't be bothered.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 12/14/2021 12:35 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <sp8itv$nn5$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> I guess it's useless. There are some, (like those against Cobol), who will
>> never admit that a vendor has a moral, if not legal, responsibility to customers.
>
> A vendor has to live up to the contract and should not do anything
> illegal. No more, no less.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is that how you want your doctor to treat you?

> Moral responsibility? Who gets to define "moral"? That open's
> Pandora's box.

No, it's called "do the right thing".

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 12/14/21 12:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> I was staying out of this nonsense, since I've long ago determined that
> no one will convince Arne of something he doesn't want to acknowledge.
> But this gem ..
>
> On 12/14/2021 10:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> Sadly, most students never learn to think for themselves and when
>> it is drilled into them repeatedly not to do someting even if the
>> reasons given ar invalid they tend to follow like the lemmings
>> college is preparing them to be.
>
> When my son was ready to go to college, he asked me, what job(s) should
> I learn?  I told him he was not going to college to learn a job.  That
> he was going to college to expand his horizons, to learn to think, and
> to question.

Wow, an argument that was quite popular in the 1800's. :-)

> That is the true job of higher education, to teach young
> people that the world is a bit wider than what they knew growing up.  To
> be able to think for themselves.  As an example, he came home one day
> and declared "the only difference between Christianity and today's cults
> is that Christianity is 2000 years old."  Now I'm sure that came from
> some know-it-all professor, but, the key was that my son was exposed to
> a new concept, and then had to think about it.

Much more likely he was told it as dogma and accepted it from the
professor without question. Did he go to a Jesuit School? :-)

>
> Higher education is only as good as those at the point of contact, the
> professors, and they are only human, with their egos, their concepts,
> and the self assurance that they are the pinnacle of human evolution.
> All too often their students accept that concept.

I remember well the year we had the evaluation by Jesuits from
one of the more prestigious Jesuit Universities. He berated us
for even having a CS Department. That was a trade and that was
not what University was for. This from a Professor who taught
at Georgetown. A school that produce piles of lawyers every
year. Like that's not a trade. :-)

Of course, please remember my earlier comment that CIS should
be taught in trade school. Should make the liberal art snobs
happy, save the students a fortune in student loans and meet
the needs of the industry. Everybody wins.

bill

On 12/14/21 10:49 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/14/2021 10:29 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/14/21 10:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2021 9:02 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/21 9:34 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/13/21 1:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> And it has thrived because of the value it provides - not because
>>>>>>> universities pushed it. The last 10-20 years Computer Science
>>>>>>> has pushed FP not OOP. But true FP has never really caught on
>>>>>>> in the industry. Most OOP languages got a few FP features and
>>>>>>> they are used for convenience, but not enough to be true FP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly, I think OOP is going to be here a long time.  I am just
>>>>>> glad the people working where it is not a good fit have resisted
>>>>>> it.  I still do COBOL.  Mostly just for fun, but it is still
>>>>>> interesting.  You should go over to Rosetta Code and see all the
>>>>>> things COBOL does that aren't even in its wheelhouse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cobol was intended as a business application language but it is
>>>>> enough general purpose to that almost everything can be done
>>>>> in it.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.  I  have done some COBOL stuff for Rosetta Code and
>>>> it's really fun.  May do another one today.  Of course, I also
>>>> do DIBOL-11, MACRO-11, Ratfor and Basic09.  And, I am thinking
>>>> of doing some Logo (I have gotten back into Logo because my 8
>>>> year old grandson wants to learn "coding" and Logo is an ideal
>>>> language for teaching the basics to someone his age).  If there
>>>> was an available PL/I compiler I would probably do a bunch in
>>>> that, too.  The fun of being a dinosaur.
>>>
>>> Kednos had PL/I for VAX and Alpha and a hobbyist program.
>>
>> Kednos is gone as far as I know.  And they didn't just release
>> the compiler when they left.  Wonder what Dave things of that?
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you can get a kit and a license - I think it was said
>>> that even though the business is closed then a hobbyist
>>> license could still be issued.
>>
>> And, that also assumes one has a usable VMS system.  Other than my
>> VAX which is not going to be running much longer I have had very
>> little luck getting an Alpha version up as I have no hardware and
>> the emulators (at least the free ones) haven't worked well for me.
>
> VMS PL/I certainly requires VMS.
>
> :-)
>
> Emulator has worked for me, but I believe Alpha's can be had relative
> cheap.

In most cases it costs more to ship one than the whole box is worth.
Sadly, I have been one of those fixed income retirees you keep hearing
about for several years now. And inflation is making it even harder
to make do. Afraid there is no spare money for computer hobbies any
more. With the price of gas I can't even afford to make road trips
for FTGH gear any more. :-)

>
> But then you need  to track down the license.

VSI License is easy to come by. I have one for the emulators I have
been trying to get running.

>
>> But I may look into that. Haven't done any serious PL/I for
>> 40 years but it was fun when I did.
>
> There are lots of rare languages to look at.
>
> GNU Modula-2 runs great on Linux.

I was never impressed with Modula. Not even when it got all
the way up to 2. :-)

>
>>> Or you could give http://www.iron-spring.com/ a try on
>>> Linux.
>>
>> Didn't know about this but a quick look shows  a beta that
>> is, at least so far, incomplete.  But then, it's free and
>> you get what you pay for.
>
> Too bad that Raincode only offer their Cobol compiler for
> free and not their PL/I compiler.

OK, I guess, if you want to do Windows. :-)

bill