| Frank Swarbrick 2007-10-17, 6:55 pm |
| >>> On 10/17/2007 at 8:18 AM, in message
<n76ch3lecd0dvrnmintstnn1e2iqlp2db2@4ax.com>, Howard
Brazee<howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:06:41 -0700, hhinman@awebdomain.com wrote:
>
>
> That's a big di vantage in trying to modify an old tool instead of
> creating a new tool.
>
>
> I believe we would have been better off with a new language that
> incorporated CoBOL's strengths.
I'm all for this. When do we start?
:-)
>
> That just doesn't make sense with OO. It could have started off
> using some other language's compiled class libraries.
>
>
> And since OO CoBOL is called CoBOL, nobody new was interested in it.
> We needed a new language. I think we still need one.
I agree. I have a lot of thoughts of what I think should be in a language
to replace Cobol. I don't think any of them are 'original thoughts', but so
far as I can tell there isn't any single language that incorporates them
all. I won't take a stab at posting these things here, as most of them are
only partially thought out and very poorly documented. Still, its a dream
of mine.
Frank
|