Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!nsc!ames!eugene
From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: How standard is COBOL?
Message-ID: <646@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 13:36:19 EST
Article-I.D.: ames.646
Posted: Mon Nov 19 13:36:19 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 05:36:07 EST
References: <35@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 33

[]

Interesting following this discussion.

I, too, have heard that COBOL is the most standardized language, and I
have spent some time sitting on sitting on another ANSI committee, but
my experience with the COBOL language tells me that COBOL standardization
is something of a joke.

Several years ago, a large research lab was analysing the conversion of
software to newer systems.  This facility had a large Univac and a slightly
smaller IBM population.  The Univac people were in the seats of power, but
the important administrative work was done on a 3032.  As a research
project using Maurice Halstead's Software Science measures, we ran
millions of lines of Univac FORTRAN and IBM COBOL thru counting
programs to 'analyze' the nature of shifting software from one manufacturer
to another.  I found that IBM COBOL was "closer" to COBOL standard
with about 300 reserved words than Univac COBOL with about 500 reserved
words.

In the end we had to dump the analysis of the IBM->Univac conversion
because the cost of adding the 200 additional keywords was beyond
research budget (we had all that FORTRAN to analyse).  These programs
did not just count line of code mind you, and we knew that languages
were more than the sum of the reserved words, but I thought I
would add some quantitative evidence to the COBOL discussion.

[In the end, the Univac forces `won' but the COBOL still sits on an IBM.]

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA