COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: Judson McClendon on 21 Sep 2007 07:40 "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > Just as an experiment, try GOOGLing "Java Programming" and "COBOL programming" > > Java= 148,000,000 hits > COBOL= 2,400,000 hits > > While this PROVES nothing, it is an indicator. If there were twice the number of COBOL prgrammers that there are Java, then it is > extremely unlikely that there would be 70 times the number of posts on Java that there are on COBOL. (You could argue that Java is > 70 times more complex and needs more posts :-) but that s a pretty feeble defence :-)) Considering that Java was specifically designed for the Internet, and COBOL comes from a mainframe background, it makes sense that there would be a lot more Google hits on Java. Proves nothing, but it is an indicator. ;-) -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
From: Judson McClendon on 21 Sep 2007 07:49 "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > PICTURE was introduced in 68, if memory serves - is it obsolete too? Just because something is old doesn't make it obsolete; > sometimes its age is a testament to its usefulness. :) Good point. We live in a culture today that is obsessed with change and the latest fad. Newer is often better, but not always. There are dozens of designs for paperclip type devices, but nobody has improved on the old double-loop oval wire design of the 1800's. How many of us have come to love a software product, then seen it be "over enhanced" to the point of becoming inferior? -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
From: HeyBub on 21 Sep 2007 09:49 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > > If the system gets used then the amount of data going through it may > increase... and, similarly to a vehicle, one will have to decide at > which point one puts aside the old three-speed Humber with > handlebar-basket - which was most suitable for moving one'sself > around during one's earlier years - and replaces it with a vehicle > which can carry one'sself, one's spouse and (n) children... perhaps a > motorscooter (which in some places, eg Southeast Asian countries, are > made to carry all that and more), perhaps an automobile of some sort, > perhaps a van, etc. From "Systemantics:" "A working large system is invariably found to have evolved from a working smaller system. A large system designed from scratch will not work and cannot be made to work."
From: Anonymous on 21 Sep 2007 09:55 In article <13f7isf2hioieac(a)news.supernews.com>, HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> If the system gets used then the amount of data going through it may >> increase... and, similarly to a vehicle, one will have to decide at >> which point one puts aside the old three-speed Humber with >> handlebar-basket - which was most suitable for moving one'sself >> around during one's earlier years - and replaces it with a vehicle >> which can carry one'sself, one's spouse and (n) children... perhaps a >> motorscooter (which in some places, eg Southeast Asian countries, are >> made to carry all that and more), perhaps an automobile of some sort, >> perhaps a van, etc. > >From "Systemantics:" > >"A working large system is invariably found to have evolved from a working >smaller system. A large system designed from scratch will not work and >cannot be made to work." It is also said that one must first walk before one can run... I did not know this was News. DD
From: Pete Dashwood on 21 Sep 2007 10:18
"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:0hg6f3p406f6alsph4s3c2ef5u478bvq2t(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:20:43 -0700, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > <snip>> > I'm throwing schoolboy insults at mainframers because they destroyed the > programming > language I love. > > I could easily have become a C, C++, C# or Java programmer. I did it full > time for a year. > I didn't love it like Cobol. > Could you explain how mainframe COBOL programmers destroyed COBOL, exactly? I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint, not looking for an argument. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |