Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-latour!rdf
From: rdf@latour.DEC
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: How standard is COBOL?
Message-ID: <35@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 12:47:47 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.35
Posted: Wed Nov 14 12:47:47 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Nov-84 01:48:23 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 17

COBOL is indeed the most standardized (?) language I have seen, but in the case
of companies like IBM, DG,DEC and others, many extensions have been made which
do inhibit transporting software. 

Make no mistake though, DG's "screen section" for on-line COBOL programming, 
DEC's VAX COBOL extensions , and IBM's little "ON 1" all help sell more 
hardware for each company.  Its up to the customer to not use extensions and
stick to the standard when developing applications that they even think would 
have to be ported to a different O/S someday.  

As was said before, all you sometimes have to change is the ENVIRONMENT 
DIVISION, but this would be a well thought out applicaton.  Standards are great,
but if extensions are allowed, then compiler writers should not be the only
ones looking at them.

Rick