Re: COBOL compiler
On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 17:22, bob parker wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:25, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 08:50, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > > At 2003-08-26T12:52:33Z, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> > > > Too bad you have such a negative view of COBOL. In the hands of
> > > > someone with a brain, it's quite a powerful and modular language.
> > >
> > > All Turing-complete languages are equally powerful. That doesn't mean
> > > that any given one would fill me with a desire to start hacking around
> > > with it.
> > >
> > > You know, I'd never seen Cobol before the screenshots on your link.
> > > Those just confirmed everything I've heard about it. :)
> >
> > For a "Hello, World" program, or an OS, or a graphics toolkit, even
> > Admiral Hooper would not say that COBOL is the proper tool. OTOH,
> > for large commercial apps, COBOL is far and away the best tool for
> > the job.
>
> I particularly like the way it deletes the most significant figure(s) when
> you get an overflow in a numeric field. Or so it did last time I had anything
> to do with it.
Must have been a compiler option or implementation decision. Our
programs machine checked on overflow.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"Fair is where you take your cows to be judged."
Unknown
Reply to: