[Guido, on http://www.cobolscript.com/] > Definitely a joke. Try > > http://www.cobolscript.com/csfaq.htm#question9 > > "One of the other advantages of COBOL is that COBOL file > processing statements are very simple, with no knowledge of disk > head positioning required." > > But yes, an incredibly good one! Worth filling out the form on > the "contact us page" and seeing what they send back. While funny, I can virtually guaruntee these people are serious. It is a common misperception among mainframe/COBOL types that C/Unix has *only* character I/O (which does not exist in the former environment at all - even terminals are block I/O). They regard this as a sign of their vast superiority. (And I dearly wish that born-again "Windoze" bashers be sentenced to work in this environment - they'll soon realize how closely related Windows and Unix are). I did a number of stints introducing client / server to Big Blue shops. (Unix made it's entry *only* because RDBMS's ran on them, and all these shops claimed they would dump Unix as soon as these products worked right on big iron). I *always* had an endless fight with the people who wanted to use COBOL instead of C / C++ (on both the Unix boxes and the PCs). MicroFocus distributed a "white paper" comparing COBOL to C that I came to know very, very well. It came in 4 sections: - the Executive Summary said COBOL was vastly superior in all respects - the White Paper said COBOL was more maintainable (translation - you can hire brown-nosing dorks in suits, instead of geeks in T-shirts) and often had superior performance - the Benchmark showed that C smoked COBOL in absolutely everything except binary search (a COBOL builtin) - the Appendix showed that the C code for "binary search" was a very badly coded linear search. But no shop had ever read past the Executive Summary. And don't forget that there is probably more than one order-of- magnitude more COBOL source out there than source in any other (or maybe all other) language(s). All with no built-in date type; and hardly ever using common date routines either (calling external programs in COBOL is expensive, and awkward, because all variables are global). Y2K-compliant-by-omission-ly y'rs - Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4