[Default] On 16 Jul 2020 20:01:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Wayne Bickerdike) wrote:
>COBOL fails at MOVE. It's a COPY. Maybe they should have said REPLICATE, >since COPY was already taken. So, not good English. I agree. COPY should have been INCLUDE and MOVE should have been COPY. There are probably other examples that I can't think of at the moment. Clark Morris > >On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM Tony Thigpen <[email protected]> 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 >> > [email protected] (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 [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> > >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
