Can't buy this. Sure, there are large portions of COBOL that do not conform to English grammar, but that is to be expected in any formalized computer language. I fail to see how statements such as:
MOVE SAVE-TIME TO REPORT-DETAIL-TIME. IF NOT END-OF-FILE WRITE SUMMARY-REPORT FROM REPORT-DETAIL-LINE. PERFORM 2000-ACCUMULATE UNTIL END-OF-FILE. can be characterized as "doesn't look remotely like English." For a C programmer, of all people, to complain that COBOL is opaque is ludicrous. Jon <snip> >But I felt that more people should be able to use the computer and >that they should be able to talk to it in plain English. COBOL doesn't look remotely like English. >Some 30 years after Hopper's remark I remember a C >programmer explaining to me that he found a piece of COBOL >completely opaque. Far be it for me to agree with a C programmer, but COBOL *is* opaque, e.g., it has "magic numbers" like 77 and 88 with special significance instead of using English words or their abbreviations. </snip> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
