Subject:
|
Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Jul 1999 16:18:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1205 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:02:11 GMT, Sproaticus <jsproat@io.com> wrote:
> 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.
I don't know the original specs for either language, but I *think* COBOL's
data-description capabilities were much richer than FORTRAN's.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: learning languages (was: Re: Perl rules!)
|
| (...) 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 (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
|
|
|
|
