Re: Micro Focus position on the "Standardized" OO Collection Class Technica

HeyBub wrote:
> Richard wrote: 
>
> There are some things you just can't do in COBOL.
>
> Flames, for example.
>
> Or what if, in the middle of a double declining balance computation you
> needed the inverse of a 100x100 matrix? AND needed to compose a ringtone t
o
> go with it?

In a rational world it will be known at the program specification stage
that such things are needed and it will be implemented in the most
appropriate language.

Having a 100x100 matrix in Cobol with a need to invert it it may be
more effective to code the inversion in Cobol rather than working out
how to pass that data into a Java class or Fortran array and have it
inverted there.

Alternately if there is part done already in Cobol it may be easier
and/or better to reimplement that code into Java (or Fortran) rather
than attempting to rewrite the Cobol part and some new Java part and
gluing them together.