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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:2776 comp.lang.misc:3588 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: COBOL (Was: Modernizing Ada; now moving to comp.lang.misc) Message-ID: <6783@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 15 Oct 89 17:44:42 GMT References: <2431@munnari.oz.au> Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu Followups-To: comp.lang.misc List-Id: >From ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe): > COBOL has changed *dramatically* with time. Successive COBOL standards > have not merely added new things (like nested programs, terminators on > compound statements, new statements) but have also discarded old things > (like the ALTER statement). Oh, come on. How about recursion? How about generics? How about multitasking? Are you seriously suggesting that COBOL has made more than a shabby pretense of keeping up with the technology of software engineering? These are band-aids, which totally disregard the many fundamental problems that COBOL has been steadfastly ignoring for decades. (Followups to comp.lang.misc...) Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu