Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!uwmcsd1!uwmacc!hobbes!circle!rat
From: rat@circle.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: COBOL vrs Ada (was: Re: "C" vrs ADA)
Message-ID: <11.213563F1@circle.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 02:23:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: circle.11.213563F1
Posted: Fri Aug 28 02:23:29 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 19:36:11 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 121/1 - 1st Circle, Madison WI
Lines: 27

I had to reply to the characterization of COBOL by Kent (the man from 
Xanth!)....
 
Seems to me that COBOL was written by upper business management personell 
who were more interested in writing a "self-documenting" language that 
everyone from the programmer to some "layman" known as a manager could 
read it. It doesn't seem like COBOL was written for any other purpose but 
to be readable-- not for speed, not for usefulness, not for compactness, 
not for reliability....
 
But all that aside, I find that all of my most used programs are written 
by INDIVIDUALS, not committees. This includes the two langauges I use, 
Forth and C. My feeling is that an individual will put in what best 
appeals to him, while a committee trys to be everything to everybody.
 
As a final note, wouldnt a language that uses "ADD A TO B GIVING C" set 
*everyone's* teeth on edge? ("C = A + B" is soooo much nicer).
 
          The Stainless Steel Rat
          "Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice.
 


--  
::: David Douthitt ::: Madison, Wisc ::: 
uucp mail: ...!uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!hobbes!circle!rat
fidonet mail: 121/1