By your statements, MVC also fails.
From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what
you are calling a COPY.
But, you have me curious.
What language uses MOVE as a destructive copy? (And overlapping operands
is not a valid example.)
And, what mainstream languages use COPY instead of MOVE.
Tony Thigpen
Wayne Bickerdike wrote on 7/16/20 11:01 PM:
COBOL fails at MOVE. It's a COPY. Maybe they should have said REPLICATE,
since COPY was already taken. So, not good English.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Tony Thigpen <t...@vse2pdf.com> wrote:
I agree with Clark.
In addition, even the best language can have it's best features ignored
by programmers so that others can claim it's the language's fault.
I have seen both REXX and C code that was totally unreadable due to the
programmer putting 24 nested functions in one statement. I have seen
COBOL code that is unreadable because the programmer used cryptic
variable names are very complex IF comparisons. I even saw one COBOL
program where the variables were all in Spanish in a shop in North
Alabama where there was only one programmer that spoke Spanish within
100 miles. Totally unreadable by the guy that followed him (me).
Don't blame the language. Blame the management that allowed programmers
to write code that was not readable by the next guy.
I used to work for a large software development firm that had strict
standards. This was before even dial-up. Most new programmers fussed
about the programming standards. Until, they got a support call at 3am
and had to debug a program over the phone with the customer reading the
COBOL source to them. Taking a little longer to code, and typing a
little more, cost very little but added a lot of ease to the back end
when it came to support.
Tony Thigpen
Clark Morris wrote on 7/16/20 10:16 PM:
[Default] On 16 Jul 2020 10:34:40 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) wrote:
The claim that COBOL is English like is every bit as bogus as the claim
that rewriting existing COBOL applications in another language will
magically fix problems of underfunding, understaffing and general
mismanagement.
Looking at some of the comment I have seen in Assembler code including
my own, COBOL code is close to the syntax of those comments.
Clark Morris
BTW, when the language du jour is out of fashion, will they want to
rewrite the application again, with the same pretext? And will they ensure
that this time they have adequate documentation and adequate configuration
control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
