From: Pete Dashwood on
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:41:33 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Hey! I learned COBOL in '67... doesn't have my name on it does it?
>> :-)
>
> You beat me by 2 years.

Ah, those were the days... :-)

Writing code on a screen where you can back up and erase mistakes?

REAL programmers use the round end of a pencil to push chad back into the
punched cards in the source deck.

Having compiles in seconds with proper diagnostics?

REAL programmers had to send their source decks to a remote location and
wait two days to get them back with a source listing and the errors. We
learned very quickly not to make syntax errors and to desk check everything
very thoroughly...Even when we finally got a computer at our own location it
took 40 minutes to compile COBOL because disks weren't available yet and
everything was tape based. We used to patch Object decks because we couldn't
afford the 40 minutes to recompile, and also there was no "best practice"
yet that would indicate this wasn't a good thing to do...

These namby-pamby young whippersnappers with their colour screens and
"compile it 'til its right" brute force approach, don't know they're born...

We sent men to the moon with 500KB in a coffe percolator...

Don't talk to me about programming... mutter... mumble...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


From: Howard Brazee on
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 02:49:35 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>REAL programmers had to send their source decks to a remote location and
>wait two days to get them back with a source listing and the errors. We
>learned very quickly not to make syntax errors and to desk check everything
>very thoroughly...Even when we finally got a computer at our own location it
>took 40 minutes to compile COBOL because disks weren't available yet and
>everything was tape based. We used to patch Object decks because we couldn't
>afford the 40 minutes to recompile, and also there was no "best practice"
>yet that would indicate this wasn't a good thing to do...

On day 1, my program was read by the syntax checker and printed. I
reviewed the program, and if the syntax check was clean and I had no
more changes, the next day it got compiled.


--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: RosettaCode
Next: persisting Object Refences in COBOL