Re: Cobol work?
- From: John Culleton <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:59:48 +0000
Ian Dalziel wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2005 15:45:23 GMT, mwojcik@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Wojcik)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <11l5em9nkca7318@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "HeyBub"
>><heybubNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>> The difference between COBOL programming and C++ is the difference
>>> between Beethoven and Bojangles.
>>
>>This is patently absurd. Lousy software can be written in any
>>language. I've seen plenty of COBOL code that was utter dreck.
>
> Sure - so have we all.
> More to the point, have you seen any C++ code that was legible?
The matter of style is important here. It is perfectly possible to write in
COBOL
ADD A, B giving C
or even
COMPUTE (C = A + B)
which looks like a FORTRAN family language but you are far more likely to
see
ADD DOLLAR-AMOUNT, SALES-TAX GIVING TOTAL-CHARGES.
COBOL encourages the use of meaningful names, and other languages, at least
the way they are usually taught, don't.
COBOL also encourages meaningful internal documentation, starting with the
(original) IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. Other languages have commenting
mechanisms, but those languages are neutral on the subject. And internal
documentation is not part of the usual teaching method.
So IMO culture as much as specific capabilities encourages readable COBOL.
That was a principal goal of GMH when she conceived the language.
--
John Culleton
Able Indexers and Typesetters
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Richard
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Cobol work?
- References:
- Cobol work?
- From: Martik
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Judson McClendon
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Christopher Pomasl
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Ian Dalziel
- Cobol work?
- Prev by Date: Re: Performance Cobol Files
- Next by Date: Re: Performance Cobol Files
- Previous by thread: Re: Cobol work?
- Next by thread: Re: Cobol work?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|