Hence NOT ludicrous! - -teD - Original Message From: Vince Coen Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 12:54 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's "inevitable" return
I think you will find that was a demand (?) that all applications developed on behalf of the military (well at least the US Navy) had to be in Cobol - if nothing else to help with standards, maintenance & migration. You have to remember that there was more than one supplier of mainframes in the 60's such as IBM, Burroughs, Honeywell Univac, Sperry Rand to name but a few and in Europe OK, the U.K., ICL (ICL), English Electric and of course the first commercial computer the LEO 3 and these were also included in UK manuals of the time. Check out the copyleft notice that is shown in all Cobol manuals and should also be in books although not in my one copy of a Cobol book - Cobol unleashed! . Vince Cobol since 1963, IT since 1961 (from 1403, 7094, 360/30 et al). On 29/07/15 17:20, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:56 -0400, Ted MacNEIL wrote: > >> Why is it so ludicrous? The USDOD did develop COBOL for some reasom. >> > And a generation later, they likewise required ADA. I don't know if that > was ever countermanded. > > I know a programmer who argued that his assignment could not be accomplished > in ADA. He was given an exemption and allowed to use assembler. > >> � Original Message � >> From: zMan >> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:28 >> >> "*The Department of Defense even decreed that all businesses must run on >> COBOL in the 1960s.*" >> A ludicrous assertion. > -- gil > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
