Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: actual text in programming languages, Unicode in strings
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 05:08:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <v2ha7o$el5m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0s17o$2okf4$2@dont-email.me> <v2df6i$3ghp4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2dju2$11ed$1@gal.iecc.com> <v2ggme$6o7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2gq3d$1mje$1@gal.iecc.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 07:08:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5a882775c5e045fc52c85cb352fc148c";
	logging-data="480438"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SBR5DayIED+xVKGh0Os0igA2I2AVt5UA="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fnj7BjIwgoysgOBdHtrypiQxzOg=
Bytes: 1751

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> schrieb:
> It appears that Thomas Koenig  <tkoenig@netcologne.de> said:
>>John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> schrieb:
>>
>>> COBOL is older than Fortran,
>>
>>Certainly not (unless you mean "Fortran" in the Fortran 90+ sense).
>>FORTRAN was released 1957, and the first Cobol specification
>>appears to have been passed in 1960.
>
> I was thinking of Flow-Matic which is arguably older than
> Fortran and is where most of COBOL came from.  Grace Hopper
> was entirely familar with mathematical notation and said that
> Univac's business customers didn't like it.

Seems that Flow-Matic became publically available in 1958 and was
"substantially complete" by 1959, so FORTRAN came earlier.