Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vb09rk$os6$1@gal.iecc.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: COBOL history, Article on new mainframe use Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 23:43:48 -0000 (UTC) Organization: Taughannock Networks Message-ID: <vb09rk$os6$1@gal.iecc.com> References: <v9iqko$h7vd$1@dont-email.me> <5GkAO.84916$%Go3.29106@fx12.iad> <20240830183742.000065c5@yahoo.com> <vb05om$162j5$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 23:43:48 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="25478"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" In-Reply-To: <v9iqko$h7vd$1@dont-email.me> <5GkAO.84916$%Go3.29106@fx12.iad> <20240830183742.000065c5@yahoo.com> <vb05om$162j5$2@dont-email.me> Cleverness: some X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) Bytes: 2609 Lines: 31 According to Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>: >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. Um, if you spent ten seconds looking at the 1960 COBOL report, you would have found IBM listed as one of the contributors, and it specifically lists the IBM Commercial Translator as one of thte sources for COBOL. 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. Um, if you spent another ten seconds looking at the 1964 NPL report (I hope you know what that was), it would be glaringly obvious that the numbered data structures and picture data come directly from COBOL. Because they knew that's what their commercial customers wanted. To avoid confusion, 1964 was four years after 1960. >Eventually, of course, customers forced it to relent and offer COBOL. That might take two or three minutes to check that IBM offered COBOL on their 7000 machines years before they had PL/I on the 360. And of course, they had COBOL and Fortran on the 360 at the same time. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly