Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Article on new mainframe use
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 18:37:42 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <20240830183742.000065c5@yahoo.com>
References: <v9iqko$h7vd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vac17h$1ab6s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vad5h9$m9d$1@gal.iecc.com>
	<vamhds$3cplg$3@dont-email.me>
	<vaohtn$2o2h$1@gal.iecc.com>
	<vare5r$b7bo$12@dont-email.me>
	<5GkAO.84916$%Go3.29106@fx12.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 17:37:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="84095aa47f02d0f520b248b5be4ecbd4";
	logging-data="590000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19OXZO6DeSJsEiFhJajxtbw8vQaYJa3Vws="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/r9i7SuNqISfGpaA8Dw1KvIxLiQ=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2359

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:28:17 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> >On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 01:12:23 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
> > =20
> >> According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid>:
> >> =20
> >>>But then, COBOL was never quite IBM=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2s thing ...=
 =20
> >>=20
> >> Uh, on what planet?  IBM has had COBOL on their mainframes since
> >> the 705 III. =20
> >
> >Umm, three-digit IBM model numbers were vacuum-tube machines, not=20
> >transistorized. COBOL dates from the transistor era. =20
>=20
> As usual, you are incorrect.   The Univac I was a vacuum tube
> machine (valves for the right-ponders) and was used for COBOL
> development (via FLOW-MATIC) by Admiral Hopper (whom I met
> at ACM '80).

FLOW-MATIC influenced COBOL, but it's not the same language as COBOL.
Which does not mean that COBOL was not implemented on IBM 705 m3.=20
Unlike majority of posters in this group, John tends to be correct about
facts.
It would not surprise me if COBOL compiler was implemented and tested on
7080 then, while still on 7080, ported to emulated 705 and then sold to
users of real 705.