From: rmarks@bbking.PRC.Unisys.COM (richard marks)
Subject: Re: More fun stuff about Cobol
Date: Wed, 26-Aug-87 12:14:01 EDT [thread overview]
Date: Wed Aug 26 12:14:01 1987
Message-ID: <621@bbking.PRC.Unisys.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1490@cullvax.UUCP
In article <1490@cullvax.UUCP> drw@cullvax.UUCP (Dale Worley) writes:
>Cobol has been used for non-numerical work. One early compiler (from
>Hopper's shop) was written in Cobol in the early 50s.
I once did a compiler (in the 80's) in Cobol. We wanted it to be 100%
portable from our big 1100's to other manufacturer's boxes (blue ones).
In fact, Cobol and Fortran may be the most portable languages.
The compiler worked very well. The data structures in Cobol are good.
I had to write one small assembler routine to get a block of memory and
return a pointer that Cobol used as an array index. Implementation time,
execution time, etc were very good. I would use Cobol again for such a
project and I've written several compilers in other languages.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1987-08-26 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1987-08-25 17:33 More fun stuff about Cobol Dale Worley
1987-08-26 0:08 ` D Gary Grady
1987-08-26 16:14 ` richard marks [this message]
1987-08-27 19:10 ` William Linden
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1987-08-27 15:22 Dale Worley
1987-08-29 17:32 ` jholbach
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox