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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: "Rick Smith" Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 392770414 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$2@news.indigo.ie> <3602983C.62B1@ibm.net> <6tvcf9$jqt$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 X-Trace: news1.atlantic.net 906224968 207.30.140.181 (Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:09:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:09:28 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert C. Martin wrote in message <6tvcf9$jqt$1@hirame.wwa.com>... > >Biju Thomas <"Biju Thomas"> > wrote in message <3602983C.62B1@ibm.net>... >>Gerry Quinn wrote: >>> >>> I don't quite understand how a non-mathematical person would >>> understand trans-Cantorian infinities. It sounds like a >>> non-programming person understanding Cobol. >>> >> >>Wasn't COBOL designed to enable no-programmer's to write programs? >> > > >Yes, that was the idea... But it failed since, clearly, some programmers >*are* writing programs in COBOL. > >(Snicker) > >Actually the idea was not to allow non-programmers to *write* the programs. >It was to allow non-programmers to be able to read the programs to some >extent. The programs were supposed to be self-documenting. In the end, >this failed too. COBOL, like every other computer language, is loaded with >arcanities which are critical for the understanding of the program. > I think the supposition that COBOL programs are "self-documenting" is folklore! Since it was not intended, it cannot have failed! In the quote below, note the subtle, yet distinct, difference between readability as documentation and program as documentation. Quote from Gerald M. Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971 "People have lost sight of the original intention of COBOL's designers. To quote one of them, Jean Sammet: The users for whom COBOL was designed were actually two subclasses of those people concerned with business data processing problems. One is the relatively inexperienced programmer for whom the naturalness of COBOL would be an asset, while the other type of user would be essentially anybody who had not written the program initially. In other words, the readability of COBOL programs would provide documentation to all who might wish to examine the programs, including the supervisory or management personnel. Little attempt was made to cater to professional programmers. ... The COBOL designers went to considerable trouble to see that these objectives were met." As I see it, the readability of COBOL allows others to examine the programs to see that they conform to other documents, such as requirements and specifications. For the individual who is changing the program, the readability of COBOL makes it easier to understand where and how to implement a change in the specification or to correct a deviation from the specification ("bug"). I do believe that the designers never intended that COBOL programs should be self-documenting; that is, existing without other documents. ------------------------------- Rick Smith e-mail: < ricksmith@aiservices.com >