jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Robert Leavitt) (11/04/88)
>However you slice it, COBOL->C conversion still smells like baloney to me! That's dandy. And you ARE rigth that converting COBOL to any Algol descended language may be kludgy, but... Is is the Algol-based language's fault? Or is it COBOL's fault? Points to ponder... -John. | US-Snail: 5877 Bartlett Street - Apt. 2 | "I must fear. Fear is the mind | | Pittsburgh, PA 15217 | killer. Fear is the little | | E-Mail: jl3j@andrew.cmu.edu | death that brings total | | Phone: (412) 422-4002 | obliteration." - the B.G. |
albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh) (11/06/88)
(Sarcasm alert! stop reading _now_ if you require a :-) after every remark that can be possibly misconstrued) From article <sXQJHoy00VQa02-Goq@andrew.cmu.edu>, by jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Robert Leavitt): > ... And you ARE rigth that converting COBOL to any Algol descended > language may be kludgy, but... > Is is the Algol-based language's fault? Or is it COBOL's fault? Definitely COBOL's fault, of course. What _could_ the designer's have been thinking of, creating a language in which the user, rather than the compiler writer, decided how much precision was "enough". And the very _idea_ of letting a programmer describe an "external" data structure that the program needed to read, rather than providing "sufficient" data structures, and converting all those old files... (_we_ know how you should have structured your data, so come along quietly now and re-do it) > > Points to ponder... > Indeed. While I'm am no great lover of COBOL, it certainly served its purpose at the time, and until creators of new languages get serious about the accuracy of arithmetic, and win enough converts to provide some hope of portation, it still serves a purpose. If you think, for example, the 'C' or Pascal are such languages, I refer you to the current flame war (in comp.lang.c) over what division means in mathematics vs what it means in C and Pascal. (add :-)'s to taste, but... ) I spend entirely too much of my work day pandering to compilers (and occasionally machines) that seem to have only the vaguest ideas about how to do arithmetic. | Mike Albaugh (albaugh@dms.UUCP || {...decwrl!turtlevax!}weitek!dms!albaugh) | Atari Games Corp (Arcade Games, no relation to the makers of the ST) | 675 Sycamore Dr. Milpitas, CA 95035 voice: (408)434-1709 | The opinions expressed are my own (Boy, are they ever)
wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) (11/06/88)
In article <sXQJHoy00VQa02-Goq@andrew.cmu.edu>, jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Robert Leavitt) writes: > wgh@ubbpc, (Bill Hutchison) writes: > >However you slice it, COBOL->C conversion still smells like baloney to me! > That's dandy. And you ARE right that converting COBOL to any Algol-descended > language may be kludgy, but... Is is the Algol-based language's fault? > Or is it COBOL's fault? Points to ponder... I have pondered it ... I think it is neither's fault: Algol-type languages are neat for certain computer-science stuff, and COBOL is OK for routine commercial programs. (I am using C and learning C++). So why translate? Commercial companies cannot hire enough competent programmers to let them switch to more "advanced" languages, so, until 4GLs or AI techniques help them make do with fewer programmers, they probably should keep using COBOL. My point was not that one language is better than another, but that I feel it is usually silly to translate programs from a language into another that is _very_ different from the first. Rewrites may well be cheaper! -- Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant rutgers!cbmvax!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh Unisys UNIX Portation Center "What one fool can do, another can!" P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121 Ancient Simian Proverb, quoted by Blue Bell, PA 19424 Sylvanus P. Thompson, in _Calculus Made Easy_
dgy@sigmast.UUCP (Dave Yearke) (11/08/88)
In article <sXQJHoy00VQa02-Goq@andrew.cmu.edu> jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Robert Leavitt) writes: > [...] And you ARE rigth that converting COBOL to any Algol descended >language may be kludgy, but... > >Is is the Algol-based language's fault? Or is it COBOL's fault? Why does it have to be either one's fault? Personally, I'm a believer in different languages for different purposes. -- Dave Yearke, Sigma Systems Technology, Inc. 5813 Main St, Williamsville, NY 14221 ...!sunybcs!sigmast!dgy