From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,86616b1931cbdae5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: No Spam Subject: Re: Is Ada likely to survive ? Date: 1997/08/17 Message-ID: <33F7007A.6E45@flinet.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 264761437 References: <871802047.43snx@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl> Organization: Florida Internet Corporation Reply-To: Die_Spammer@flinet.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-08-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jerry van Dijk wrote: > > In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu writes: > > >(*) COBOL is *not* a woman's name :-) > > No, but there definitively is a feminine connection... > > :-)) I thought this newsgroup went around the block on this one a while ago. Seems we had a debate about the capitalization of Fortran, etc. and it was concluded with some formal reference to some standard somewhere that yes, indeed, FORTRAN can now legally be spelled Fortran because it had stopped being an acronym and had become a noun. (Seems like it was Robert Dewar who came up with the reference too. Maybe he can refresh my memory...:-) Well, I don't know if Cobol (COBOL?) has met with the same or similar standards committee, but it would seem that if FORTRAN can become Fortran because it is now a noun, then COBOL can become Cobol for similar reasons. In the abscence of a formal committee hearing on the legality of saying "Cobol" I intend to continue to do so. If the keepers of gramatical correctness want to prosecute me, so be it. MDC