Sujet : Re: The joy of FORTRAN
De : 186283 (at) *nospam* ud0s4.net (186282@ud0s4.net)
Groupes : alt.folklore.computers comp.os.linux.miscDate : 28. Sep 2024, 08:18:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : wokiesux
Message-ID : <3hOdnWpQ649QMGr7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
On 9/27/24 4:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2024-09-27, geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/27/24 13:43, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
On 2024-09-27, geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Cobol was also very portable.
>
As long as your destination compiler supports COMP-3. :-)
>
Or your source computer didn't have COMP-3, or if you didn't use it.
I was once called in to optimize a CPU-bound COBOL program.
The genius who wrote it declared all subscripts as COMP-3.
Changing them to COMP-4 knocked 30% off the execution time.
Did COBOL even HAVE real "types" ???
It was not really a "sophisticated" language.
It was MEANT mostly for biz/commercial apps,
esp financial and scheduling. It was GOOD at
that - except for being TOO ugly/confusing in
the chase to be "simple/self-documenting".
I don't hate COBOL - it HAD/HAS its place.
However the real-world implementation could
never live-up to "The Vision".
COBOL could/can be "improved" - made more
efficient. But NOBODY is gonna DO that
these days. As such COBOL kinda becomes
like 'Latin' - an unchanging 'dead' lang.
This MAY be a good thing.
…