Re: What's really wrong with COBOL?

[steve@uspm650.Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)]

In article <1990Mar24.154331.3328@world.std.com> madd@world.std.com (jim frost) writes:
>billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) babbles:
>>   There is also multitasking -- the ability to express the idea of 
>>   objects which do their work in parallel.
>[...]
>>   it is necessary to implement it using what is known as "recursion". 
>>   This is what happens when a procedure or function calls itself
>[...]
>>   ...an "abstract data type" ... is a style by
>>   which one identifies and characterizes a real-world object through
>>   a description of the operations which can be done with that object,
>
>What is this, a review of a freshman course in CS?  Have you resorted
>to believing that all people who use cobol are "common folk, people of
>the land (you know, morons)"?
>
>Assume, for a change, that we're all professionals here and don't need
>trivial concepts described, especially inaccurately.

Jim is right -- this does sound like a freshman CS course (a whole lot
like a one I took).

Let's face facts -- there is nothing inherently wrong with COBOL.  A
properly structured COBOL program CAN have a modular design, can
do recursion (see the following code segment:


	PROCEDURE DIVISION.
	     MAIN-PARA.
		MOVE "N" TO PARA-STOP.
		PERFORM PARA-A THRU PARA-A-EXIT.
		STOP RUN.

	     PARA-A.
		do something here.
		PERFORM PARA-A THRU PARA-A-EXIT UNTIL PARA-STOP
	                = "Y".
	     PARA-E-EXIT.

If you dissect that code, it is recursive.  The initial call in the
main paragraph will execute ONCE.  The second perform within
PARA-A will continue to perform PARA-A UNTIL THE EXIT CONDITION
IS MET!.

Granted, COBOL was designed a long time ago, but it is still a
valid language, and possibly more portable than C.  COBOL exists
for all the operating systems I am familiar with (Unix, MS/PC-DOS, CP/M,
MVS, VMS, VRX, ITX, IRX, IMOS.....).

You can take that same COBOL code, re-compile it on the target machine,
and IMHO, probably spend less time getting it to work than trying to
take a C program with it's dependence on include files.

Don't get me wrong,  C is great for some things, but let's remember
why COBOL was developed...  for businesses.  Not to write operating
systems in, or word processing applications, or other similiar
types of things where you have to get down and talk to the hardware
at a lower level than COBOL (or FORTRAN) will allow.

In our department, we use COBOL on a daily basis.  Why?  Because
development time is quicker, debugging is easy, file I/O is quick,
and it runs like a scalded cat.

But, we also use 4 G/L type products like Informix and Progress.  Why
don't we use Pascal/C, or other object oriented type stuff?  Because
IT DOESN'T MEET OUR NEEDS.  We need to analyze business information,
not spend time worrying about abstract data types and whether our
product can do recursion.  

Granted, if we were responsible for writing operation systems and the
like, OO type languages would be the choice, but we don't.

Bill - 
I guess what I am trying to say is don't condemn a language that people
use until you look at what the problems they are trying to solve.



	

-- 
Steve Bridges                    | NCR - USG Product Marketing and Support OLS
Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM     | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus)
..!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve   | AOPA #916233
..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve| PP-ASEL, AMEL