Re: The joy of FORTRAN

On 9/28/24 4:24 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 09:12:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

COBOL was massively good at what it did, and what it still does.

 Too short-sighted in its design: in its focus on what passed for
“business” needs in the early 1960s, it struggled to keep up with the
growing popularity of relational databases in the 1970s and 1980s. To
construct SQL queries, you really needed good dynamic string handling, and
COBOL explicitly eschewed all that. So SQL handling was always some kind
of bag on the side, rather than properly integrated into the language.

   Ummmm ... I'd tend to say WELL-FOCUSED on its INTENDED
   uses - at least as best they understood them in the
   late 60s. "Net" - few even DREAMED.
   And COBOL is STILL with us, just under the skin. Lots
   of those 60s pgms writ by narrow-tie horn-rim-glasses
   Dilberts STILL doing their thing. NOT dead at all.
   I looked over the shoulder of my bank person while
   they were fixing-up some shit recently - LOOK & FEEL
   of a COBOL pgm, very "terminal", very biz focused.
   And now few can AFFORD/DARE to re-write What Just
   Works ... so COBOL will be around for another couple
   of decades fer sure until/if "AI" gets REALLY good.
   There's REALLY GOOD MONEY in maintaining/tweaking
   existing COBOL apps BTW. I know a guy, kinda MADE
   his retirement nest-egg that way ......