Re: What's really wrong with COBOL?

[jw@mck-csc.UUCP (Jeffrey Weiss)]

In article <8458@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
 billwolf exercises the keyboard and comes up with:

>From article <420@mck-csc.UUCP>, by jw@mck-csc.UUCP (Jeffrey Weiss):
>> 
>> ...What are the real SUBSTANTIVE problems with COBOL?
>
>   From a business perspective, the real substantive problem with COBOL
>   is that typically 80% of effort is spent trying to maintain code which
>   fundamentally is unmaintainable.  The reason for this is that COBOL has
>   found itself unable to evolve quickly enough to keep up with the last
>   20-30 years' worth of evolution in programming language technology.
>
[   ...history of COBOL and Software Engineering 101 deleted...]

>   Now let me just briefly sketch out why COBOL is considered to be no
>   longer adequate.

[   ...brief 80-line description of Ada features deleted...]

Those lines indicated two features (apparantly well supported by Ada) that
might be linked to maintainability.  Those are:
	- Module dependency tracking to aid in identifying "ripple-effects"
	  when implementing a change.
	- Ability to build callable libraries of generic functionality, thus
	  supporting layered, modular programming.

I agree, these are important.  (Someone else has mentioned local variables not
existing in COBOL, a feature which fits nicely in the above list.)  Now, are 
there really no ways to implement the above features in a COBOL environment?
Are function calls and libraries not possible for some reason?  And could
tools such as SCCS or "make" provide the first point?

...mit-eddie!mck-csc!jw
Jeffrey Weiss