Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Computer langauges and software lifecycle - references request
Message-ID: <5258@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 89 01:12:20 GMT
References: <432@bnr-fos.UUCP>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 13

From article <432@bnr-fos.UUCP>, by schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow):
> The major problem is that very few problems/systems these days are suited to
> COBOL. All the new sexy things (real-time, windows, graphics, ...) don't work
> well in COBOL.

   Don't forget multitasking, reuseable ADTs, packages, true exception 
   handling, operator overloading, or separate compilation...

   Personally, I'd like to see a good COBOL vs. Ada study, 
   if anybody knows of one (or is interested in doing one)...


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu