From: ·······@ziplip.com
Subject: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <LUEAAFMBILONEFOIOMELLWFTN4L2GNFRJYGHMPJS@ziplip.com>
BEING THE HASH-VALUES OF

What do you like more: COBOL or Lisp ?

From: Espen Vestre
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <kwlludg6zk.fsf@merced.netfonds.no>
········@ziplip.com" <·······@ziplip.com> writes:

> BEING THE HASH-VALUES OF
> 
> What do you like more: COBOL or Lisp ?

ROTFL :-)

I must admit that while I'm one of those old-timers that have actually
gotten fond of LOOP (to the extent that I'm no longer able to write
DO/DO*- loops without looking up examples or in the manual), I have
big problems remembering the syntax of the hash iteration
constructs... so I use maphash whenever I can...
-- 
  (espen)
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2A47CE.9050901@nyc.rr.com>
·······@ziplip.com wrote:
> BEING THE HASH-VALUES OF
> 
> What do you like more: COBOL or Lisp ?

I am a huge fan of COBOL. Evaluate, move-corresponding, 
coply...replacing, condition names, transparent conversion between 
numeric and even alphanumeric types. perform..varying..from...until.

But stop being mean to it by comparing it to a language like Lisp. COBOL 
had its day, but you better start studying Lisp (and stop running around 
trying to irritate people) or you won't be ready when Lisp has its.

-- 

  kenny tilton
  clinisys, inc
  http://www.tilton-technology.com/
  ---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
From: Steven M. Haflich
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2A8714.6000504@alum.mit.edu>
Kenny Tilton wrote:

> But stop being mean to it by comparing it to a language like Lisp. COBOL 
> had its day, but you better start studying Lisp (and stop running around 
> trying to irritate people) or you won't be ready when Lisp has its.

There is still a warm spot for COBOL in my heart, or perhaps somewhat lower
down, from 30 years ago where COBOL programming paid for music school.
(Yes, I already knew Lisp back then.)

But lest members of c.l.l think that COBOL is the same language it was
30-40 years ago, be aware that COBOL is _still_ under active development
and the community reacts appropriately to the demands of new technology.
INCITS/J4 is a sibling committee to INCITS/J13, and they have active
projects.  See http://www.cobolstandards.com/ .  IIRC O-O programming
was added to COBOL some years ago, and language bindings to XML are
underway.

I'm certainly not going to endorse COBOL as a modern programming language,
but it may not be quite the dinosaur everyong imagines it is.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2A93E1.7010902@nyc.rr.com>
Steven M. Haflich wrote:
 > Kenny Tilton wrote:
 >
 >> But stop being mean to it by comparing it to a language like Lisp.
 >> COBOL had its day, but you better start studying Lisp (and stop
 >> running around trying to irritate people) or you won't be ready when
 >> Lisp has its.
 >
 >
 > There is still a warm spot for COBOL in my heart, or perhaps somewhat 
lower
 > down, from 30 years ago where COBOL programming paid for music school.
 > (Yes, I already knew Lisp back then.)
 >
 > But lest members of c.l.l think that COBOL is the same language it was
 > 30-40 years ago, ...

Oh, no, I looked at the Object Division when it came out. :)

You know, if the Java crowd is looking for a language for the masses... 
why not?

kt
From: Bob Bane
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2E7DF5.5050203@removeme.gst.com>
Steven M. Haflich wrote:


> 
> But lest members of c.l.l think that COBOL is the same language it was
> 30-40 years ago, be aware that COBOL is _still_ under active development
> and the community reacts appropriately to the demands of new technology.
> INCITS/J4 is a sibling committee to INCITS/J13, and they have active
> projects.  See http://www.cobolstandards.com/ .  IIRC O-O programming
> was added to COBOL some years ago, and language bindings to XML are
> underway.
> 


I suppose it had to happen someday - the combination of the most verbose 
popular programming language and the most verbose popular data 
interchange format.

Is this being secretly promoted by the RSI for Mainframe Programmers 
Society?

	- Bob
From: Programmer Dude
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2EA36B.1CB18F2B@mmm.com>
"Steven M. Haflich" wrote:

> IIRC O-O programming was added to COBOL some years ago,...

The joke goes that the OO version of COBOL is called:

    POST-INCREMENT-COBOL-BY-ONE	


-- 
|_ CJSonnack <·····@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <3F2EA9D5.6090104@nyc.rr.com>
Programmer Dude wrote:
> "Steven M. Haflich" wrote:
> 
> 
>>IIRC O-O programming was added to COBOL some years ago,...
> 
> 
> The joke goes that the OO version of COBOL is called:
> 
>     POST-INCREMENT-COBOL-BY-ONE	
> 

I like "ADD 1 TO COBOL"


-- 

  kenny tilton
  clinisys, inc
  http://www.tilton-technology.com/
  ---------------------------------------------------------------
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from
Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets."
                                                  -- Bob Uecker
From: Simon Katz
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgmm4c$pvo9f$1@ID-131024.news.uni-berlin.de>
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Programmer Dude wrote:
> > "Steven M. Haflich" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>IIRC O-O programming was added to COBOL some years ago,...
> >
> >
> > The joke goes that the OO version of COBOL is called:
> >
> >     POST-INCREMENT-COBOL-BY-ONE
> >
>
> I like "ADD 1 TO COBOL"


ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL-PLUS-PLUS.
From: Matthias
Subject: Re: COBOL versus Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <bgm3gj$nr7$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>
Steven M. Haflich wrote:
> But lest members of c.l.l think that COBOL is the same language it was
> 30-40 years ago, be aware that COBOL is _still_ under active development
> and the community reacts appropriately to the demands of new technology.
> INCITS/J4 is a sibling committee to INCITS/J13, and they have active
> projects.  See http://www.cobolstandards.com/ .  IIRC O-O programming
> was added to COBOL some years ago, and language bindings to XML are
> underway.

The latest ISO standard published in December 2002?  And already working 
towards a revision in 2008?  I'm impressed.  Ansi CL looks old against 
it... :-)

Seriously: There must be a number of people out there putting real money 
into the development of the COBOL language.  I really would not have 
expected that.