"DoD" is not a "business". As noted, the claim is ludicrous.
And any SSNs, CCNs, etc. hard-coded are clearly not what was being talked about, nor would those be hard to find and fix. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[email protected]> wrote: > 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: [email protected] > Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > Subject: Re: Article on COBOL's "inevitable" return > > Well, actually the original statement WAS self-apparently "ludicrous" > because it stated that U.S. DoD decreed ALL businesses would use COBOL, > period, and DoD has never had that much authority. > > DoD had zero control over businesses that did not work on defense > contracts for DoD, and even those with defense contracts could only be > constrained to DoD standards in the work they did on behalf of those > defense contracts. The use of an unconstrained ALL is what made it > ludicrous. The considerable influence of DoD as a major consumer forced > the availability of COBOL and later ADA support and set the standards > for code written for DoD projects, but DoD is not [yet] omnipotent. > JC Ewing > > On 07/29/2015 12:04 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote: > > Hence NOT ludicrous! > > > > - > > -teD > > - > > Original Message > > From: Vince Coen > > Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 12:54 > > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > 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 the 60's such as IBM, Burroughs, Honeywell Univac, Sperry Rand to > > name but a few and in Europe OK, the U.K., ICL (ICL), English Electric > > and of course the first commercial computer the LEO 3 and these were > > also included in UK manuals of the time. > > > > Check out the copyleft notice that is shown in all Cobol manuals and > > should also be in books although not in my one copy of a Cobol book - > > Cobol unleashed! > > . > > Vince > > > > Cobol since 1963, IT since 1961 (from 1403, 7094, 360/30 et al). > > > > > > > > > > On 29/07/15 17:20, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >> 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 > accomplished > >> in ADA. He was given an exemption and allowed to use assembler. > >> > >>> � Original Message � > >>> From: zMan > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 11:28 > >>> > >>> "*The Department of Defense even decreed that all businesses must run > on > >>> COBOL in the 1960s.*" > >>> A ludicrous assertion. > >> -- gil > >> > > > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
