Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!alzabo!tris
From: tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris Orendorff)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: OO Implementations in COBOL
Message-ID: <1990Mar4.215100.28713@alzabo.uucp>
Date: 4 Mar 90 21:51:00 GMT
References: <19358@grebyn.com> <9950001@hpcc01.HP.COM>
Lines: 33

gph@hpcc01.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes:

>  I have worked in and with a fair number of COBOL based MIS departments.
>  It is simply not true that COBOL computing centers are closed environments;
>  they simply are not connected to the particular network you rely on.

This is possible.

>  As for the object oriented use of COBOL, I myself can see no reason why
>  object oriented priciples used in COBOL would have poor performance.  
>  I would think that COBOL would be an IDEAL language for Object Oriented
>  design.   It is difficult to pass many different data types to sub
>  programs in COBOL, and it is much easier to pass messages in the form
>  of strings.

I agree.  On the question of performance, I don't think it would be poor
either.  OO principles have more benefits than liabilities. 

I can't wait to see what the new COBOL will be like.  I suspect it may be
similar to some of the fourth generation languages that are already out.


-- 
				Sincerely Yours
				Tris Orendorff
				tris@alzabo.uucp
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 ALGERNON:  The doctors found out that Bunbury could not live ...
           so Bunbury died.
 
 LADY BRACKNELL:  He seems to have had great confidence in the opinion
                 of his physicians.