Re: cobol storedprocedures

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:05:07PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 8/15/05, MICHAEL BATTANI <MICHAEL(dot)BATTANI(at)companiongroup(dot)com> wrote:
> > I've been scanning the postgres website and yours to find out any
> > information on cobol stored procedures. Is there any plans on incorporating
> > this
> > in future releases?
>
> I don't think anyone is working on such a thing right now.
>
> The procedural languages development usually follows this route:

It's even more complicated than this I think in this case. Pretty much
all of the procedural languages currently supported are interpreted,
it's easier that way. Compiled (C) functions need to be compiled and
loaded specially, which I imagine is not what the original poster
wanted.

Looking on the web for a free (open source) COBOL interpreters[1][2]
has not been fruitful which just places another roadblock. I know
nothing about COBOL so I have no idea how hard it would be to write
one. Perhaps translating to another interpreted language would be
easier. At least COBOL to C converters seem to be in abundence.

[1] http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cobol.shtml
[2] http://www.ecuadors.net/compilers.htm

Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.