In 20150729161156.5509204.53960.43...@yahoo.ca, on 07/29/2015
at 12:11 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:
Why is it so ludicrous?
Because it's contrary to fact,
The USDOD did develop COBOL for some reasom.
They encouraged its use, but didn't mandate it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.)
In 6820716805403537.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
07/29/2015
at 11:20 AM, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu said:
I know a programmer who argued that his assignment could not be
accomplished in ADA.
Possible but unlikely.
He was given an exemption
In 55b90553.3020...@gmail.com, on 07/29/2015
at 05:54 PM, Vince Coen vbc...@gmail.com said:
and in Europe OK, the U.K., ICL (ICL), English Electric
BULL. Possibly Siemans as well. There were also some in the Eastern
Block.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO
Fairly decent except for several major points of nonsense:
*The Department of Defense even decreed that all businesses must run on
COBOL in the 1960s.*
A ludicrous assertion.
*But the even bigger reason not to rock the boat is the sheer size and
cost of replacing billions of lines of COBOL that
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
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
On 07/29/2015 11:28 AM, zMan wrote:
Fairly decent except for several major points of nonsense:
SNIP
*But the even bigger reason not to rock the boat is the sheer size and
cost of replacing billions of lines of COBOL that exist today. Many of
these programs contain sensitive information about
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
Why is it so ludicrous? The USDOD did develop COBOL for some reasom.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: zMan
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:28
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return
Fairly decent except
I was in the US ARMY in Europe in the early 1970's.
We were developing a COBOL based system that was entirely COBOL
except for some BDAM DB access that was needed. The only assembler
was an ONLINE system that could be used to gain access to the online DB.
The system was to be used world wide
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
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/tap/Files/hopper-story.html
Grace Hopper on Codasyl committee helped write the first Cobol specs
and participated in the first Cobol Compiler test in 1959.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Vince Coen vbc...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you will find that was a demand
*The Department of Defense even decreed that all businesses must run on COBOL
in the 1960s.*
A ludicrous assertion.
Actually not ludicrous. This occurred when I was in the military (1973) and
was definitely an objective. The goal was that all applications would be
written in COBOL. The only
Depends on what context you took it in.
I (silly me) took it to mean all DoD business.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: Joel Ewing
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 15:16
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return
Well
(silly me) took it to mean all DoD business.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: Joel Ewing
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 15:16
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's inevitable return
Well, actually the original statement
http://blog.hackerrank.com/the-inevitable-return-of-cobol/
A fairly decent article. It doesn't appear to be a piece designed to
promote some vendor or another. Not in depth, but with some good truths
plainly stated. It might even be understandable to a Windows person. OOPS,
there I go being tacky
16 matches
Mail list logo