COBOL received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The content of Picture clause was merged into COBOL on 8 August 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
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.
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2004
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 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 November 2004
This isn't a big deal to me, but did anyone else learn it as "CoBOL" (Common Business Oriented Language)? Any old-schoolers out there who learned on punch cards? Woo-hoo! Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I only ever saw it written as COBOL, but often wondered how a lower case "o" became an upper case "O" in the acronym. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Most programming languages (and operating systems) were originally spelled all-caps. A very incomplete list of examples: COBOL, FORTRAN, LISP, BASIC, BAL, RPG, ALGOL, PL/I, SNOBOL, CPL, BCPL, etc. The Pascal language appears to be the first one (ca. 1970) that changed the trend, so now we see names like Perl, Java, Haskell, Python, etc., as well as renamings of the old languages, e.g., LISP is now spelled as "Lisp". — Loadmaster (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The draft 1997 proposal for Cobol incorporates the basic object-oriented programming capabilities found in C++ and Smalltalk (see Table 1): inheritance, which allows objects to inherit data and behaviors from other objects; polymorphism, which simplifies coding by letting programmers use a single interface to access objects of different classes; and encapsulation, which hides the implementation of data and methods from clients (user code), thereby protecting clients from the effects of implementation change.
So it would be accurate to say that COBOL 2002 (the object-oriented version of COBOL), or more precisely, the enhancements made to COBOL 2002, was influenced by C++. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I've added notes clarifying that C++ and Smalltalk only influenced COBOL 2002's OO features. EdwardH (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good; but ref. 5 really needs to be replaced with a better source (ref. 4 is not too bad).
"In contrast with modern, succinct notation like y=x;, COBOL uses MOVE xTOy." - Should be something like: "COBOL uses more traditional notation [or "more English-like notation", whichever fits better] (in this case, MOVE xTOy)". And shouldn't it be "syntax" instead of "notation"?
"A 1959 survey had found that in any data processing installation, the programming costs at least $800,000 and that translating programs to run on new hardware would cost $600,000." - correct grammar in underlined text (suggestions above). Also, the source says the cost is on average, so I think it should mention that the cost is on average.
"In the early 1990s it was decided to add object-orientation in the next full revision of COBOL. - should be reworded.
Done I've applied the changes you've suggested. Thanks for the comments! EdwardH (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks good! I'll scour through sources to see if there's no OR, then, if there are no problems, promote. Esquivaliencet 21:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)