Speaking as a PL/1 bigot -- it was my first language -- there's no doubt you're right. I dislike COBOL for its wordiness, but even I have to admit that aside from that it's powerful enough to do the job and a bit over. I have occasionally had to pause to reluctantly admire its ability to do modular.
--- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* Real programmers don't work from 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9am it's because they were up all night. */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 23:17 --- On 8/1/22 1:42 am, Tony Harminc wrote: It's interesting that no language since COBOL has ever tried to emulate the "english" syntax. It turns out that it was not actually a terribly good idea. Programmers preferred languages with more concise syntax. BTW, I'm not knocking COBOL. I'm a mainframe guy and I'm cognizant to the fact that the raison d'être of the mainframe is to run applications written in COBOL. PL/I programmers will disagree but COBOL is king. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
