Subject:
|
Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:02:11 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@/avoidspam/io.com
|
Viewed:
|
1059 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > "What The--?! Why don't we use words we already know?"
> > And thus the evil in Grace Hopper begat COBOL.
> Hey, don't be dissin' COBOL for that :-( It served a purpose in its time
> (~40 years ago) and it's not COBOL's fault that it's still being used.
I have to admit, I'm something of an anti-COBOL bigot. That has obviously
clouded my judgement, but I can't see what COBOL could do that FORTRAN
wasn't already doing more cleanly and efficiently, on the same platforms.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com>
http://www.io.com/~jsproat
Darth Maul Lives
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
| (...) Well, hey, aren't we all -- and as well we should all be (IMHO) in 1999, especially with all this Double-Byte COBOL, OO-COBOL, and COBOL-Java stuff going on as perverse attempts to keep COBOL alive and milking the Y2K cash cow. But I thought (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
| (...) Hey, don't be dissin' COBOL for that :-( It served a purpose in its time (~40 years ago) and it's not COBOL's fault that it's still being used. (...) LOL! (OTOH, I've written 'printf' a couple of times when I'd meant to write 'print' :-) (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
