Re: CoBOL moved to OO
From: Howard Brazee (howard_at_brazee.net)
Date: 12/29/03
- Next message: Judson McClendon: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Howard Brazee: "Re: Date manipulation"
- In reply to: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: William M. Klein: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:30:32 GMT
On 24-Dec-2003, "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> However, If you look OUTSIDE COBOL, you find a completely different story.
> The REST of the World accepts OO as necessary and fundamental for the
> systems of tomorrow. So much so that the Operating systems, Network
> software, and Web Scripting languages are ALL OO. It is taken as read, and
> nobody outside of this forum would even bother to argue it whether it is
> superior or not. (I am probably one of the last, and I am heartily sick of
> it...<G>).
Some needs are suited for OO, with high levels of interactivity. Your examples
above are interactive. Complicated examples such as Windows XP couldn't be
written any other way - but we have to expect that there are bugs that effect
more than their small portion of the code.
Most of these needs aren't suited for CoBOL, OO or not.
Some needs are suited for isolation of programs with low levels of
interactivity.
Those latter needs are often also suited for CoBOL. Most of the interactivity
with CoBOL is by calling the same database.
- Next message: Judson McClendon: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Previous message: Howard Brazee: "Re: Date manipulation"
- In reply to: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: William M. Klein: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Reply: William M. Klein: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|