What does /g/ think of good ol' COBOL?

File: 1474711813156.jpg (11KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 235x235px

>>59632169
Harder to compile than to write it tbqh...

>>59632169
i think it's an anagram of BOLOC

>>59632169
I do not like COBOL one bit. The massive pay scale for COBOL programmers must be to offset the suicidal thoughts it brings.

>>59632169

I only wrote it professionally for about 6 months, but I liked it. Great (in conjunction with embedded SQL) for it's problem domain of data processing, although admittedly awful for anything else. Latest language standard is quite improved from what's in old textbooks (COMPUTE statement, OO extensions, free-form syntax, even structured programming).

Where it really shines is for maintenance. It isn't pretty, but I can write a COBOL/embedded SQL system that works in text mode without going outside the language standards. This means it'll work on big iron, PCs, and whatever people use to run COBOL in 40 years.

>>59632169
I've never used it, it was one of the three languages that I could pick up as my first, as my friend knew them and could give me books and compiler.
But I chose regular Pascal over Cobol and "Delphi" then.

>>59632169
I want to learn it one day because of my interest in old systems.

>>59632169
Great language for a lot of reasons, but I simply prefer Fortran. You should consider switching to a good OS.

>>59632181
I've never had trouble.