Searching \ for '[OT]: Perl and COBOL for PICs' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Perl and COBOL for PICs'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Perl and COBOL for PICs'
2006\08\16@184434 by Marc Nicholas

picon face
Folks,

I was *joking*! COBOL on a PIC would be useless for all practical
purposes, and the footprint of Perl (even miniPerl) is huge. Let
alone, how would you add packages?!

Sorry if I disappointed many of you. :-(

-marc

2006\08\16@203907 by upand at them

picon face

The old guys at work tell me that everything can be done in COBOL. :)

Mike


--
View this message in context: www.nabble.com/-OT-%3A-Perl-and-COBOL-for-PICs-tf2118377.html#a5843527
Sent from the MicroControllers - PIC forum at Nabble.com.

2006\08\17@095131 by Sergey Dryga

face picon face
Marc Nicholas <geekything <at> gmail.com> writes:

>
> Folks,
>
> I was *joking*! COBOL on a PIC would be useless for all practical
> purposes, and the footprint of Perl (even miniPerl) is huge. Let
> alone, how would you add packages?!
>
> Sorry if I disappointed many of you.
>
> -marc

Why not? Some of the higher end PICs approach low end IBM S/360.
>From the announcement for S/360 (www-
03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PR360.html):

A key development provides 8 Mb storage accessible at 8 ms -> PIC with External
flash;
Control memory operates at 250 ns -> PIC at 16 MHz!

Yes, and you could get S/360 at that time for **just** $133,000-$5,500,000 !

So, embedded COBOL anyone?  It would be a really neat trick to emulate S/360 on
PICs.

Sergey
http://beaglerobotics.com




2006\08\17@100618 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Never ever underestimate what can be done with COBOL or FORTRAN.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2006\08\17@100725 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Sergey,

Did you finish it? OK, two more days, but that's the latest deadline, I want
to test it by the weekend :-)

Tamas



On 17/08/06, Sergey Dryga <spam_OUTsdrygaTakeThisOuTspamnc.rr.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\08\17@105522 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Never ever underestimate what can be done with COBOL or FORTRAN.

It's been a long long long time since I used it, but, there's nothing
*essentially* wrong with FORTRAN - it's just somewhat clunky.
You can write in a structured way with it if you wish, even though
it's not structured per se.
There really isn't anything you can do with eg C that you can't do
with FORTRAN.

I'll leave COBOL for others to defend :-).


       Russell



2006\08\17@135950 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> It's been a long long long time since I used it, but, there's nothing
> *essentially* wrong with FORTRAN - it's just somewhat clunky.
> You can write in a structured way with it if you wish, even though
> it's not structured per se.
> There really isn't anything you can do with eg C that you can't do
> with FORTRAN.

That is a very weak argument: computationally-wise (the scientific
equivalent of 'what you can do') *all* programming languages are equal,
including totally wacky languages like Schonfinkels S/K combinators. The
main distinguishing factor is how much human effort it takes to create a
program (in the language) that solves a specific problem (and statisfies
all constainst, including space and time constaints). That's where
languages differ widely, and in a way that depends much on the
characteristics of the problem at hand. Some langauges are rich in
problem-solving features, either build-in or in libraries. Such
languages have a clear advantage when those features match your problem
(like: PIC basic with build-in software UART that can use the pins you
choose). Other languages give you maximum control over the generated
code, at the cost of your time (C, Assembler). Yet other languages are
rich in abstraction constructs, so it is (relatively) easy to build good
libraries. etc. etc. There are lots of languages, and there are lots of
reasons so many labguages exist and are used, and some of those reasons
are a good reasons (though definitely not all).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\08\22@160939 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

I agree, even admire FORTRAN. I started with FORTRAN-IV, but then
FORTRAN-77 (now very popular yet -- see http://www.netlib.org -- tons written in
this way), but it evolved to F-90, even F-95, and it is well-structured
now. Even F-77 is good from this aspect. And not forget RATFOR -- have
implemented it at that time both for CP/M and S/360. It was a dream after
F-IV. The code effectiveness seems to be a good idea for PIC, too, but I
think the similarity of C to FORTRAN lets no playground for the latter.

Regards,
Imre

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\08\22@174956 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

> Hi,
>
> I agree, even admire FORTRAN. I started with FORTRAN-IV, but then
> FORTRAN-77 (now very popular yet -- see http://www.netlib.org -- tons written in
> this way), but it evolved to F-90, even F-95, and it is well-structured
> now. Even F-77 is good from this aspect. And not forget RATFOR -- have
> implemented it at that time both for CP/M and S/360. It was a dream after
> F-IV. The code effectiveness seems to be a good idea for PIC, too, but I
> think the similarity of C to FORTRAN lets no playground for the latter.
>
> Regards,
> Imre


It's probably been 35 years since I did Fortran, and 25 years since Cobol.
I did have RATFOR on my Cromemco CP/M machine. Never used it, but it was
there. Let's see if I can remember some COBOL...

MULTIPLY A BY B GIVING C

You could also use the CALCULATE


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\08\22@175501 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

> Hi,
>
> I agree, even admire FORTRAN. I started with FORTRAN-IV, but then
> FORTRAN-77 (now very popular yet -- see http://www.netlib.org -- tons written in
> this way), but it evolved to F-90, even F-95, and it is well-structured
> now. Even F-77 is good from this aspect. And not forget RATFOR -- have
> implemented it at that time both for CP/M and S/360. It was a dream after
> F-IV. The code effectiveness seems to be a good idea for PIC, too, but I
> think the similarity of C to FORTRAN lets no playground for the latter.
>
> Regards,
> Imre


It's probably been about 35 years since I did any FORTRAN, and maybe 25
since COBOL. My old CP/M Cromemco machine at RATFOR. Let's see if I
remember any COBOL:

MULTIPLY A BY B GIVING C

or the more concise way to write it:

CALCULATE C=A*B

I've generally thought that you could run anything on any processor, it
was just a matter of how long it took. But that was assuming some sort of
virtual memory or memory banking so large programs could fit in a small
address space. Though I've never used it, I guess some PICs can be used in
a processor mode instead of the controller mode where program memory is
off chip. With that you could get fancy with banking, overlays, virtual
memory, etc. and run whatever you want, though somewhat slowly.

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\08\22@182729 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi,

CALCULATE is invalid. Use COMPUTE instead. But it could not replace DIVIDE
... REMAINDER . On the other hand, only COMPUTE could raise. We always
told a COBOL program looks like a novel for a manager even if he could not
understand it...

Imre

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Harold Hallikainen wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\08\22@190847 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

> Hi,
>
> CALCULATE is invalid. Use COMPUTE instead. But it could not replace DIVIDE
> ... REMAINDER . On the other hand, only COMPUTE could raise. We always
> told a COBOL program looks like a novel for a manager even if he could not
> understand it...
>
> Imre
>

Ahhh! I guess I forgot that. But, of course, this runs on a computer, not
a calculator, so it must be COMPUTE!

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...