5 ms·

But they have coexisted at the same time haven't they?

pjmlp 6y ago
They have coexisted since early 70s, back when C was invented. However where COBOL rules is on mainframes, which after Assembly have always used PL/I derived systems programming languages (like Unisys, IBM i and z/OS), so on those systems C is just another guest language and hardly anyone cares to use it beyond porting software to their POSIX runtimes.
- kyberias 6y ago
  Right, that's why I don't understand why you had to bring up the fact that C was invented later. OP didn't claim anything related to that.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Because COBOL was seen as productive in the context of 1950's computing environments.
protomyth 6y ago
Unlike Fortran, COBOL really hasn't evolved in the C dominated world. Although C is really dominant on the platforms COBOL lives on.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  What?!? Cobol has had its last revision in 2014, supports modules, OOP, and even has .NET and JVM backends. MicroFocus and Fujistsu also have frameworks for cloud deployments and writing microservices in Cobol. Almost no one cares about C on mainframes beyond porting some POSIX stuff, or running Aix/Linux on an hypervisor.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    That's basically it, no one cares about C on the mainframe so COBOL doesn't deal with the C competition and C flaws that fuel Go and Rust. COBOL itself has advanced but it doesn't have the same competition.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      They don't care about C because mainframes always had better alternatives for systems programming, via PL/S, PL.8 and NEWP, as the three major surviving ones. Even BLISS and Mesa were better than C.
      - protomyth 6y ago
        If I remember correctly OpenVMS was programmed in something else also. It would have been interesting if one of the PC operating systems had decided to use one of those languages. So, no C, no interest in 'I need a C replacement language', enterprise software is boring, so no COBOL replacement. Plus, I know of at least one vendor who did develop something but it is kept in-house. I did expect someone to develop yet another REXX to address this need.
  - skissane 6y ago
    > Almost no one cares about C on mainframes beyond porting some POSIX stuff, or running Aix/Linux on an hypervisor. I think, with Metal C, that's less true than it used to be. My understanding is that, for brand new z/OS components (e.g. Zowe, z/OSMF), IBM prefers Metal C to PL/X. It is also seeing increasing use by mainframe ISVs as a replacement for assembly and PL/X.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      IBM uses mostly C++ alongside PL/S, Metal C is a niche solution, most users are supposed to target the language environments.
      - skissane 6y ago

They have coexisted since early 70s, back when C was invented. However where COBOL rules is on mainframes, which after Assembly have always used PL/I derived systems programming languages (like Unisys, IBM i and z/OS), so on those systems C is just another guest language and hardly anyone cares to use it beyond porting software to their POSIX runtimes.

kyberias 6y ago
Right, that's why I don't understand why you had to bring up the fact that C was invented later. OP didn't claim anything related to that.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Because COBOL was seen as productive in the context of 1950's computing environments.

protomyth 6y ago

Unlike Fortran, COBOL really hasn't evolved in the C dominated world. Although C is really dominant on the platforms COBOL lives on.

pjmlp 6y ago
What?!? Cobol has had its last revision in 2014, supports modules, OOP, and even has .NET and JVM backends. MicroFocus and Fujistsu also have frameworks for cloud deployments and writing microservices in Cobol. Almost no one cares about C on mainframes beyond porting some POSIX stuff, or running Aix/Linux on an hypervisor.
- protomyth 6y ago
  That's basically it, no one cares about C on the mainframe so COBOL doesn't deal with the C competition and C flaws that fuel Go and Rust. COBOL itself has advanced but it doesn't have the same competition.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    They don't care about C because mainframes always had better alternatives for systems programming, via PL/S, PL.8 and NEWP, as the three major surviving ones. Even BLISS and Mesa were better than C.
    - protomyth 6y ago
      If I remember correctly OpenVMS was programmed in something else also. It would have been interesting if one of the PC operating systems had decided to use one of those languages. So, no C, no interest in 'I need a C replacement language', enterprise software is boring, so no COBOL replacement. Plus, I know of at least one vendor who did develop something but it is kept in-house. I did expect someone to develop yet another REXX to address this need.
- skissane 6y ago
  > Almost no one cares about C on mainframes beyond porting some POSIX stuff, or running Aix/Linux on an hypervisor. I think, with Metal C, that's less true than it used to be. My understanding is that, for brand new z/OS components (e.g. Zowe, z/OSMF), IBM prefers Metal C to PL/X. It is also seeing increasing use by mainframe ISVs as a replacement for assembly and PL/X.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    IBM uses mostly C++ alongside PL/S, Metal C is a niche solution, most users are supposed to target the language environments.
    - skissane 6y ago