Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- From: Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:29:53 -0600
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:44:36 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Frank,
I am not certain that they are saying that some of these features wouldn't be
"useful". However, as currently defined (in WD 1.10) there are both technical
problems and the run-time overhead would be significant.
With the world moving away from CoBOL to OO languages - why should
run-time overhead in batch CoBOL be significant?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- From: Bill Gunshannon
- Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- References:
- Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- Prev by Date: Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- Next by Date: Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- Previous by thread: Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- Next by thread: Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
- Index(es):