Re: Dead languages?
From: Howard Brazee (howard_at_brazee.net)
Date: 07/08/04
- Next message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Previous message: Mike Walters: "Re: Dead languages?"
- In reply to: Michael Metcalf: "Dead languages?"
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: James Cownie: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:07:38 GMT
On 8-Jul-2004, "Michael Metcalf" <michael.metcalf@t-online.de> wrote:
> I just happened to hear an editor of the new edition of the Concise Oxford
> English Dictionary say on the radio that obsolete words get removed to make
> way for new ones. Her two examples were Snobol and Cobol. Is this a valid
> definition of a dead computing language?
That's silly. If CoBOL isn't #1 anymore, it is still in the top 5 (probably
top 2) languages in use today.
But did that dictionary get rid of the word "Latin", to make way for "Java"?
CoBOL is much more commonly used than Latin is.
- Next message: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Previous message: Mike Walters: "Re: Dead languages?"
- In reply to: Michael Metcalf: "Dead languages?"
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Reply: James Cownie: "Re: Dead languages?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
