3 ms·
"Contemporary COBOL". At least they didn't say modern COBOL, or it will be an oxymoron.
by xiaodai 5y ago
"Contemporary COBOL". At least they didn't say modern COBOL, or it will be an oxymoron.
- skissane 5y ago> At least they didn't say modern COBOL, or it will be an oxymoron. Is COBOL 2014 "modern COBOL"? https://www.iso.org/standard/51416.html https://www.iso.org/standard/51416.html Or what about the in-progress COBOL 202X standard? https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=19468956 https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=194689...
- pjmlp 5y agoHere is modern COBOL, https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overview https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overv...
- p_l 5y agoHaving experienced, if peripherally, MicroFocus, I'd rather go with IBM COBOL on z/OS...
- leoc 5y agoObligatory mention of J. Wayne Spence's COBOL for the 80's https://www.worldcat.org/title/cobol-for-the-80s/oclc/11621757 https://www.worldcat.org/title/cobol-for-the-80s/oclc/116217... (images of different covers: https://www.ebay.com/itm/223985240042 https://www.ebay.com/itm/223985240042 and https://www.ebay.com/itm/352577866145 https://www.ebay.com/itm/352577866145 ). That title hit its peak humour value about the mid-'90s (when I first heard of it) and has been becoming steadily more horrifying ever since.