I was looking into learning COBOL some years ago, because i found that verbosity interesting.
And it seemed like there’s not many libs and toolboxes out there, compared to the major languages that has libs for everything, so I couldn’t really use it for small projects.
The issue with COBOL surely isn‘t about the language itself. The real challenge will be to decipher the spaghetti code that was created at a company in the last sixty or so years. And then to dare changing something without breaking the program as a whole.
I learnt COBOL (I’m old) it’s a very easy language, you basically talk, for instance to do c=a*b you write:
MULTIPLY A TO B GIVING C
and everything is tabbed, but in a good editor like emacs, it’s done automatically pretty well.
I was looking into learning COBOL some years ago, because i found that verbosity interesting.
And it seemed like there’s not many libs and toolboxes out there, compared to the major languages that has libs for everything, so I couldn’t really use it for small projects.
The issue with COBOL surely isn‘t about the language itself. The real challenge will be to decipher the spaghetti code that was created at a company in the last sixty or so years. And then to dare changing something without breaking the program as a whole.
That’s easy you just use the huge number of test cases to ensure against introducing new bugs.
/S
10 print "Hell here" 20 goto 10That’s how you talk?
you shout in COBOL ;-)
shout shout let it all out
These are the things I can do without: =±*/