neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (08/23/87)
In article <1146@watmum.waterloo.edu>, smvorkoetter@watmum.waterloo.edu (Stefan M. Vorkoetter) writes: > In article <253@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes: > > As long as > > computers remain basically Von Neuman processors, no language is > > going to offer any advantages in the real world to a language > > like COBOL. > > Really? COBOL is a big kludgy language. Nothing written in COBOL runs > very fast. Do you think IBM's COBOL compiler is written in COBOL? No way. It certainly is big and kludgy. I am sure IBM's COBOL compiler is not written in COBOL, but interestingly the REALIA COBOL compiler for PCs apparently IS written in COBOL. That compiler has actually gotten very good reviews and in an article in CACM a few months ago was shown to get performance out of a (single-tasking) AT-class machine comparable to a (normally-loaded) 370 class mainframe. Not bad for COBOL, but *I* still wouldn't want to spend the best years of my life programming in COBOL. -- Paul Neubauer UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!neubauer
dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) (08/25/87)
Let's not forget, most C programmers like to get paid.
Most of them receive pay-checks that are printed by computers.
These computers are mostly programmed in COBOL!
--
Dave Levenson
Westmark, Inc. A node for news.
Warren, NJ USA
{rutgers | clyde | mtune | ihnp4}!westmark!dave