Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col misc |
On 2025-02-26, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:We ADMIT - COBOL SUCKED.
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:Wrote 'em, maintained 'em. They're hell in any language.
>On 2/25/25 2:33 PM, vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:>
>I went from DEC20 FORTRAN to pdp11 Basic (it had matrix math) to DEC SAIL>
(Algol) to Pascal to C to Python
Sounds familiar ... though 'C' became available on
the PDP-11s (was writ on them). Still pref Pascal
over Python where possible.
>Assembler and COBOL were needed but avoided>
Better ASM than COBOL :-)
Depends on what you want to do. Assembler is a lot more fun,
but I wouldn’t want to write a payroll system in it.
Having said that, I really enjoyed working in assembly language,
for the privilege of not having some snooty compiler slap your
wrist and say you needed a page of code to do something you could
do in a few lines of assembly code.
My COBOL days didn't involve any database stuff. Mind you, I'veASM can give you kind of a buzz, makes you one>
with the machine.
>
Alas if I'd learned more COBOL then I could have
had a lucrative retirement income supp maintaining
all those old biz/ops code. Still LOTS of it in
use and it's too expensive now to replace. If it
works you hang on to it with a death grip.
It’s not just COBOL any more, it’s all COBOL/CICS/DB2. Same with PL/I.
managed to avoid any sort of DBMS for my entire career. However,
I did do enough work with Univac's equivalent of CICS (in both
COBOL and assembly language) to be glad to be done with it.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.