🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sXQJHoy00VQa02-Goq@andrew.cmu.edu>, jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Robert Leavitt) writes:
> wgh@ubbpc, (Bill Hutchison) writes:
> >However you slice it, COBOL->C conversion still smells like baloney to me!
> That's dandy.  And you ARE right that converting COBOL to any Algol-descended
> language may be kludgy, but... Is is the Algol-based language's fault?
> Or is it COBOL's fault? Points to ponder...

I have pondered it ...  I think it is neither's fault:
 Algol-type languages are neat for certain computer-science stuff, and
COBOL is OK for routine commercial programs.  (I am using C and learning C++).
 So why translate?
 Commercial companies cannot hire enough competent programmers to let them
switch to more "advanced" languages, so, until 4GLs or AI techniques help them
make do with fewer programmers, they probably should keep using COBOL.
 My point was not that one language is better than another, but that I feel
it is usually silly to translate programs from a language into another that is
_very_ different from the first.  Rewrites may well be cheaper!
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!cbmvax!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
Unisys UNIX Portation Center	"What one fool can do, another can!"
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121		Ancient Simian Proverb, quoted by
Blue Bell, PA 19424		Sylvanus P. Thompson, in _Calculus Made Easy_