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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,30df5a909ff1af4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Answering an Ada/COBOL Question Date: 1999/11/16 Message-ID: <80qk9s$6h5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 549089963 References: <80hr16$5q2$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net> <80leu1$k3l$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <80mc1j$6fo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <80piek$rd3$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x31.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 16 03:50:22 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-11-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <80piek$rd3$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Richard D Riehle wrote: > One of the real tragedies is that so much software that ought > to be developed in the current version of COBOL is being > developed in C. Actually I think this is a rather small section of the market, I don't often run into C or C++ in COBOL type environments (smalltalk is for example more popular in this environment). The notion that COBOL is dead is another remarkable myth that you fine. About a year ago, I talked to a very high up official in the DoD who was in a position of considerable influence regarding DoD fiscal applications. He presented as received knowledge the idea that only the DoD was still using COBOL, and that all commercial companies had abandoned COBOL long ago. I was too taken aback to have any idea how to react to this absolutely amazing point of view. When we developed Realia COBOL in the 1980's for the PC, we expected the market to be offloaded maintenance of existing COBOL applications on mainframes. We were surprised to find that the major market was (and still is by the way) development of new COBOL applications to be deployed on PC's (it is possible these days to run JCL, BAL, CICS, etc on PC's, so the entire mainframe environment can be replicated). > In part, this is the fault of the compiler publishers. One popular > COBOL compiler publisher, used by a colleague of mine here in Silicon > Valley, has been notoriously unresponsive in its support. One thing > about programming in C. You do not have to rely as much on your > compiler publisher for support. The same can be said for assembler. > > >I don't hold that view. Many people (inside *and* outside academia) hold > >this view of Ada. I'd suspect that if you polled Silicon Valley more than > >90% of the programmers just know that Ada sucks. > > I suspect the percentage is slightly higher. When I attend a function > here, wearing a badge that says, "AdaWorks," I can count on getting > questions such as, "I thought that language died a long time ago." Ada > is considered to be the COBOL of the 80's by many programmers in this > neighborhood. "It is big, slow, obsolete, and not worth much consideration. > On top of that, it is a military language, designed by committee so it > can't be any good for commercial programming." > > Fortunately, we are seeing some change in that view. Robert would be > amused to learn that some of those who are adopting a positive view > of Ada are not adopting Ada. Instead, they are programming in GNAT. > > Richard Riehle > http://www.adaworks.com > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.