Re: The joy of FORTRAN

On 2/27/25 9:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:

On 2/27/25 2:43 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-02-26, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

>
It’s not just COBOL any more, it’s all COBOL/CICS/DB2. Same with PL/I.

>
My COBOL days didn't involve any database stuff.  Mind you, I've
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.

>
   We ADMIT - COBOL SUCKED.

 Please, speak for yourself.
 COBOL, in its day, was the superior choice for business
applications.   Several 4GL environments were built around
COBOL or autogenerated COBOL applications.
 It was even useful for systems programming in some environments;
I once worked on a disk defragmentor written in COBOL.

   So, since it's so perfect you STILL use it for everything ? :-)

(That COBOL compiler had the capability of embedding
assembler directly in the COBOL source, much like modern
C compilers).
 COBOL has been eclipsed for many purposes by newer languages,
but it is still used, and modern COBOL doesn't much
resemble the 1968 COBOL language.