Re: New Cobol compiler written in Cobol

From: Robert Wagner (spamblocker-robert_at_wagner.net)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:13:06 GMT

In 1962 (or so) IBM released the 1401 computer system. The dominant
machines at the time were the IBM 7090 and similar 7040. Next to them,
the 1401 looked like a toy. It couldn't address more than 16K of
memory and had no operating system. Its strongest feature was a 600
lpm printer. Mainframers brushed it aside as a computer, thinking of
it as a programmable off-line I/O device, which is the role it played
in big companies. For medium-sized companies, it was the first
computer they could afford. By 1965, when it morphed into the IBM-360,
the 14xx line had grown to become the dominant business computer.

IN 1982 IBM released the PC. The doinant business machines at the time
were the IBM 370. Next to them, the PC looked like a toy. It couldn't
address more than 640K and had a rudimentary operating system: MS-DOS.
It didn't support tape drives, which were still important in the
mainframe world, had a 10M disk and was slow. Its strongest feature
was a memory-mapped screen. Mainframers brushed it aside as a
computer, thinking of it as a programmable terminal, which is the role
it still plays in big companies. For small companies and home
businesses, it was the first computer they could afford. By 1995, when
it morphed into the Wintel box, the PC had grown to become the
dominant computer line.

In 2002 Microsoft released the XBox. The dominant machines at the time
were Windows boxes and Unix servers. Next to them, the XBox (and other
game machines) looked like a toy. It couldn't run 'real' software,
only games. It didn't have a visible operating system. Its only strong
feature was high-speed floating point. Big whoop. Programmers brushed
it aside as a computer, thinking of it as a programmable consumer
electronics entertainment device. Kids got it because their parents
didn't trust them with a 'real' computer having internet access (they
didn't notice the XBox also had internet access).

Note the regularity of timing -- twenty years between generations, by
coincidence the same as human generations. Note the similarity of
low-profile introduction and initial scorn by the computing
mainstream. Note the rapid growth of hardware capacity, which quickly
surpassed mainstream systems.

I think we have a pattern.

If I were writing a Cobol compiler, I wouldn't look at today's market.
That's myopic. I'd target the market 5 years hence. It won't be
Microsoft/Windows or Sun/Java; it will be a fat XBox or Playstation
running Linux. It will have multiple CPUs, blazing speed and huge
storage. TV-like graphics and sound will be the norm rather than an
add-on.

What will a programming language need to be successful in that world?
Ease Of Use. Programmers won't put up with cryptic languages like C++
and Java. They'll use a language they can understand at a glance.
Bingo -- that's Cobol's strength. They'll expect database to be
integrated, not an add-on. They'll expect a polished navigation in the
IDE -- more like Acrobat than a fancy text editor.

What will a programming language need to fail in that world?
Antequated concepts like binary and packed numbers, string handling
that's incompatible with other languages, difficulty communicating
with OO languages and libraries, flat files (they belong in a library,
not a language).

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Cobol compiler written in Cobol
    ... IBM designed the IBM PC to be a 'better Apple][PC' which was ... clustered servers and supercomputer closely coupled machines. ... They'll use a language they can understand at a glance. ... Programmers won't put up with cryptic languages like C++ ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
    ... >briefly and remotely), NCR, Control Data Corporation, and Honeywell - plus ... >that learning a language and being able to program are separate skills. ... Neophyte programmers all make the same mistakes. ... game machines, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: CollabRx seeks brilliant engineers for an excellent e-science adventure
    ... belief that lisp programmers are smarter/better. ... Java or PHP programmers. ... a type of language that attracts a personality that meets my perceptions ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Question concerning object-oriented programming
    ... programming language, not his. ... there has usually been a toString. ... I know it's "unrealistic" to expect actual programmers to do this, ... tell me what a dog is. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Language X, not Forth ?
    ... As you become more familiar with a language, it's readability is a function of how much care the programmer took to make it more readable. ... The use of non-readable graphics characters doesn't help FORTH to ... All programmers I know use one sort or another to indent or highlight control flow. ... Therefore, I just don't do this kind of crazy things like juggling around with many stack elements. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)