Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:47:55 +0000 (UTC)
In article <pan.2008.10.27.23.25.27.586401@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Silfax <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:23:19 +0000, docdwarf regurgitated the following
High-demand COBOL? Like the stuff that still contains 66 RENAMES and GO
TO DEPENDING ON?
worse yet, "GO TO DEPENDING ON" where the targets are also the targets of
ALTER statements
That's not highly-demanding... that's piteously mewling for '... help....
help!'
(wonderful language, this English)
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Silfax
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- References:
- COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: James J. Gavan
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From:
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Silfax
- COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Prev by Date: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Next by Date: Re: Cobol for Visual sutdio
- Previous by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|