Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vb05om$162j5$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Article on new mainframe use
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 22:33:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <vb05om$162j5$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v9iqko$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> <20240830183742.000065c5@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2024 00:33:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="451ad815162a3f3080e1cdc6c6433f29";
	logging-data="1247845"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sGmu13LPuxjU8ebgKRN1b"
User-Agent: Pan/0.160 (Toresk; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:osjtxE9LuIPhd2HfwFACByGEHqc=
Bytes: 1705

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 18:37:42 +0300, Michael S wrote:

> 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.

As I recall, IBM wasn’t part of CODASYL, and had no part in COBOL 
development. So it had the usual “NIH” attitude and was trying to push
PL/I as its all-singing, all-dancing language for both business and 
scientific use, for some time.

Eventually, of course, customers forced it to relent and offer COBOL.