Re: COBOL compiler
Von: "Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
> 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.
ehm, at my work, they have a real big host system. from what i've heard, it's programming language is cobol, running under a specific IBM OS. i don't know a lot of that stuff, but there'll be some good reasons why IBM did that.
but my father (he knows cobol very well...) had massive problems coming from cobol (DOS) to some more current windows programming. from cobol, he has never seen multi-tasking/multi-threading concepts nor (graphical) windows, a mouse or even such principal programming language conepts as functions (!). one must imagine, how can cobol be an easy to understand and to maintain language if you're by design supposed to write spaghetti code like it was once in gwbasic?
IMHO any C/pascal-like language or partially still (visual) basic seems far more fiendly to me. and i was involved in the developemt of some bigger (partly commercial) applications now, and i must say that VB and VC++ are very good tools for such.
and, yes - i'm a student, too..... (you may think of me what you stated above, it may be right or not)
--
Yves Goergen
nospam.list@unclassified.de
Please don't CC me (causes double mails)
Reply to: