Subject:
|
Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 22:13:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
jsproat@io.[stopspam]com
|
Viewed:
|
1204 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
> Different camps, right? In a nutshell, FORTRAN was/is for math and physics
> geeks, while COBOL was/is for suits. (Or: FORTRAN is for number crunching
> and COBOL is for business record data manipulation.)
Oy vey, der camps. I alvays vorget der camps. Und der suits und der
schlide-rules and der schtuff.
> Also: FORTRAN (begun in 1954, first reference manual published in 1956,
> and first production version released in 1957) was an IBM project. COBOL
> (begun in 1955, released in 1959) was largely a US Navy project, and also
> somewhat an effort to demonstrate that computers didn't have to be used
> only for number-crunching.
Wasn't COBOL started in 1959? By the time COBOL was developed, my dad (1)
was writing FORTRAN compilers for whatever platform he needed one on. Or,
so the legend goes...
> and can you imagine the Navy licensing a language from IBM when they could
> make their own? :-)
Well, they wouldn't cater to the English language, so they came up with
their own. :-,
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. AHA! The source of my pro-FORTRAN biases! :-P
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com>
http://www.io.com/~jsproat
Darth Maul Lives
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
| (...) I think that's when it was first released, right? Hopper began working on it much earlier than that, yes? 1955 was what I read somewhere a couple hours ago. (...) Hey cool -- so you're a second-gen too? We'll have to invent a secret handshake. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
| (...) Heh heh heh. What was your parental-unit (1) coding? My dad was basically a civvie contractor for the Army for a good chunk of his career, writing software for calibrating RADAR and RADOT hardware, though he did work at the Hanford Nuclear (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
