Liste des Groupes | Revenir à col misc |
On 9/27/24 4:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:COBOL was massively good at what it did, and what it still does.On 2024-09-27, geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> wrote:Did COBOL even HAVE real "types" ???
>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.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.