5 ms·

I read the other day (but failed to really verify) that COBOL is so verbose in part because it was designed as a "no code" language that at least could be under

I read the other day (but failed to really verify) that COBOL is so verbose in part because it was designed as a "no code" language that at least could be understood, and possibly written by "business people". I have yet to meet anybody in this magical category that knows how to program except for the syntax, and if only they were given a way to draw their vision as a picture or write it in English, instead of have to stoop to "code" they'd be able to cut out software developers and go straight to their vision. But I assume as long as software is sold to "leadership" there will be a niche for these products - just not one in which they are actually used for anything.

throw_m239339 5y ago
> I read the other day (but failed to really verify) that COBOL is so verbose in part because it was designed as a "no code" language that at least could be understood, and possibly written by "business people". So was ADA, allegedly. I don't find it more readable than C or C++, just more verbose. The issue is that, syntax doesn't matter when one still has to understand concepts BEHIND that syntax. Visual programming may help learning though. I learned OOP via Flash, learned SQL via some SQL editor, and learned basic ASP classic via Dreamweaver. But it's just a step, like ridding a bike with training wheels.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Ada's verbose syntax was a workaround for primitive terminals with limited character sets. (That's also why it's case insensitive.) It was never intended to be especially English-like, or easy to survey for non-technical users - while both of these were goals for COBOL.