Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!prls!pyramid!leadsv!practic!vlsisj!davidc
From: davidc@vlsisj.VLSI.COM (David Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: OO Implementations in COBOL
Summary: alt.cobol lives!
Keywords: COBOL, OO, OOD, OOA
Message-ID: <15497@vlsisj.VLSI.COM>
Date: 21 Feb 90 02:20:12 GMT
References: <19358@grebyn.com> <1990Feb15.004231.23324@alzabo.uucp>
Reply-To: davidc@vlsisj.UUCP (David Chapman)
Organization: VLSI Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
Lines: 21

In article <1990Feb15.004231.23324@alzabo.uucp> tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris Orendorff) writes:
|	One of the benefits of OO is being able to share code.  MIS
|shops don't know the meaning of the word share.  That's why there is 70
|billion lines of code.  Everybody started out from scratch 20 years ago
|and has build up proprietary routines to get their work done.
|	This may also explain why there is no comp.lang.cobol or
|alt.cobol for people to share COBOL information.  The computing centers
|are all closed environments and will probably stay that way until they
|are shut down (fat chance). 

There is an alt.cobol, by the way.  I read the first few messages because
I thought it was a joke, but it's real.  I don't know if there's a 
comp.lang.cobol, though.  We don't have either here, but Stanford has 
alt.cobol.

Be still my beating heart.  :-)
-- 
		David Chapman

{known world}!decwrl!vlsisj!fndry!davidc
vlsisj!fndry!davidc@decwrl.dec.com