17 Feb
2015
17 Feb
'15
10:55 p.m.
On 02/17/2015 09:27 PM, Mouse wrote:
That is no surprise to me. If you were to take code
written in C and
translate it into COBOL, I'd generally expect the COBOL code to be
longer and harder to maintain, too.
COBOL implements a PICTURE specification, and, with the exception of
PL/I, which copied it, was a stroke of genius. A PICTURE clause
specifies not only the display format, but also the type, scaling and usage.
You may think that the CORRESPONDING modifier is a singularly bad idea,
but it has its uses.
How many languages before COBOL had a regular syntax for defining data
structures?
COBOL is a powerful language with many different statement variations
and, like other languages, is absolute hell in the hands of a neophyte.
--Chuck