Talk:COBOL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Current total for lines of COBOL programs[edit]

The article (based on 1981 data?) claims that little new code is being written in Cobol. A more current estimate is at 5 billion codelines a year, so perhaps it depends on the definition of "little"... (See for instance http://www.cobolwebler.com/cobolfacts.htm, citing Gartner Group as a source.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.138.138 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2004‎

Strange use of second generation language[edit]

Where does come your use of second generation language: it is usually reserved for assembly languages. -- Hgfernan 12 May 2004

I agree. COBOL is a third generation language. other examples of third generation languages would be FORTRAN and BASIC. If someone else doesn't correct it soon I may do so. It is a clear mistake. enhandle nov 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhandle (talkcontribs) 02:48, 14 November 2004‎

Perhaps GNU Cobol is the way to go. Works on Linux, Windows, Mainframes, you name it! https://sourceforge.net/projects/open-cobol/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C6:8000:8C0E:18E6:80A2:D9DE:B2A1 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

More on the lack of encapsulation, and ABC batch paradigm[edit]

COBOL is a good example of why a programming language should encourage good programming practices. COBOL didn't, and many programmers were improvised, because the demand of programmers exceeded the available. Even office boys were offered to became programmers after a short programming course. Structured programing was not known by the 60s, databases were not yet available.

Programmers learned the ABC batch paradigm. ABC means in Spanish, Altas (Add), Bajas (delete) and Cambios (Changes), I do not know how this was called in English.

They build monolithic programs, not even use the subroutine and call statements, but local subroutines call with perform.

COBOL was the paradigm of all bad practices, like indiscriminate use of global variables, bad modularity, no code reuse (just reused the ABC skeleton), etc.

Object orientation pays particular attention to encapsulation and inheritance. According to this article, OO Cobol, does not has encapsulation, and nothing is said about overloading, which is important for inheritance.

As far as I remember, COBOL, never had something like the entry points in Fortran, which implemented overloaded functions.

I came to this article, because I had the curiosity to know how COBOL became OO it's antithetic paradigm, due to the lack of encapsulation and overloading. I was not wrong, OO Cobol is not really OO. That language is in use because many IT Managers, are scared to dispose hard to upgrade but stable programs. There are many techniques to make this transition less risky, but not risk free.

I do not want to offend COBOL lovers, but this language is now obsolete, although not every program should be written in the OO style. A payroll is essentially an ABC batch program. COBOL had features to sort files, now database management systems are used instead of indexed files, an employee may be registered the hiring day, and magnetic cards, transponders, or finger prints are registering their assistance to work, but are paid on a week, month or 2 times a month basis. So it is still almost likely to be programmed in a batch style. Those systems are the reason that many inherited systems are sill running in banks and government offices.

This points could be added to the article, as technical and social practices, maybe a batch skeleton could be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.42.144 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to offend academic computer scientists, but there has to be a reason why COBOL was so successful - could it be that being designed by non-academic computer scientists was a big plus. The article makes the POV statement that it suffered as a result.Gomez2002 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello world example[edit]

I think the POV of the Hello World example should be changed. It seems to not just be showing COBOL syntax but making some point about the nature of the output. "The associated compiler listing generated over four pages of technical detail and job run information, for the single line of output from the 14 lines of COBOL"

The tone doesn't seem to be written by someone familiar with JCL or COBOL, and the output includes warning messages to get to "line 10". In other words there is a lot of spurious stuff that isn't relevant. Or if the intention is to show the level of detail possible in output from JCL or COBOL then it doesn't come across as positive and I am still not sure of the relevance to Hello World.

I think the comments about the compiler output should just be removed.Ei2g (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)