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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard D Riehle Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/21 Message-ID: <6u4b5f$lsq@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 393145962 References: <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6simjo$jnh$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35eeea9b.2174586@news.erols.com> <6sjj7n$3rr$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f055a5.1431187@news.erols.com> <6sjnlu$83l$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skfs7$2s6$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F252DD.5187538@earthlink.net> <6t4dge$t8u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6t5mtp$4ho$1@news.indigo.ie> <35FFE58C.5727@ibm.net> <6tqvji$f0k$2@news.indigo.ie> <6ts4d0$2gk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6ttg0o$9kb$2@news.indigo.ie> <3602983C.62B1@ibm.net> <6u0ck4$f08$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: ICGNetcom X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Sep 20 6:46:23 PM PDT 1998 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-20T18:46:23-07:00 List-Id: In article <6u0ck4$f08$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote: >In article <3602983C.62B1@ibm.net>, > bijuthom@ibm.net wrote: >> Wasn't COBOL designed to enable no-programmer's to write programs? > >No. It wasn't, and this idea is obviously absurd on the face >of it ... When considered from the viewpoint of COBOL's design objectives, Robert is correct. However, it turned out that one of COBOL's virtues was just as Mr. Biju asserts. During the 1960's and 1970's many large companies (banks, insurance companies, etc.) discovered it was easier to train accounting personnel to write programs in COBOL than it was to train programmers to understand accounting. Many of those accounting personnel went on to become real programmers. This resulted in all sorts of interesting problems, some of which are still with us today. COBOL gets a "bad rap" from those who favor other languages. The fact is that it continues to evolve and improve. The example given in Robert's posting was an illustration of changes to the language that first appeared in ANSI-85 COBOL standard. A COBOL programmer of an earlier time would not recognize the code as valid. Many COBOL shops are still using COBOL 68 and COBOL 74 quite regularly and creating successful data processing systems. The currently emerging COBOL standard is an Object COBOL in which this presumably outdated and obsolete language continues to amaze its detractors by being resilient enough to evolve to encompass the current fad in software development. Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com www.adaworks.com