Re: What's really wrong with COBOL?

[madd@world.std.com (jim frost)]

billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas
Wolfe, 2847) writes:

>   Please explicitly point out what specific statements you considered
>   inaccurate, if any.

Earlier he had written:

>  There is also tremendous difficulty when one tries to describe what
>  is known as an "abstract data type" in COBOL.  This is a style by
>  which one identifies and characterizes a real-world object through
>  a description of the operations which can be done with that object,
>  such that a guarantee exists that nobody can do anything with the
>  object without making use of the predefined operations available 
>  for it

You are defining "abstract data type" incorrectly; I would call it
"any data type which does not exist by default in the language
specification".  What you are describing is a little more complex than
an abstract data type, yes?

Happy hacking,

jim frost
saber software
jimf@saber.com