COBOL was designed for organizations transitioning accounting systems from unit record equipment. It makes sense in that context, and could have been much worse

COBOL was designed for organizations transitioning accounting systems from unit record equipment. It makes sense in that context, and could have been much worse. Someone said (I think about FORTRAN, but it still applies) that criticizing the designers of those early languages is like criticizing Lewis & Clark for not taking Interstate 90. > Unlike FORTRAN and Lisp, it begat nothing. Cross-platform portability. And long-windedness, though I don't count that a positive.