R
M
Michael Wojcik
COBOL is very serious indeed. There are still thousands of active
COBOL programmers developing new applications, and the COBOL standard
(in various versions, but a single standard) is quite important.
W
Walter Roberson
:> ISO 1989:2002 Programming Language Cobol
:> It is interesting that of the "serious" living languages,
:> only ISLISP, C, and C+ are specified by a single standard: the rest
:> require multiple standards.
:COBOL is very serious indeed. There are still thousands of active
:COBOL programmers developing new applications, and the COBOL standard
in various versions, but a single standard) is quite important.
Good point. Is COBOL still "living" in the sense of evolving in
response to real needs (not just for marketing or acedemic purposes) ?
:> It is interesting that of the "serious" living languages,
:> only ISLISP, C, and C+ are specified by a single standard: the rest
:> require multiple standards.
:COBOL is very serious indeed. There are still thousands of active
:COBOL programmers developing new applications, and the COBOL standard
in various versions, but a single standard) is quite important.Good point. Is COBOL still "living" in the sense of evolving in
response to real needs (not just for marketing or acedemic purposes) ?
M
Michael Wojcik
:COBOL is very serious indeed. There are still thousands of active
:COBOL programmers developing new applications, and the COBOL standard
Good point. Is COBOL still "living" in the sense of evolving in
response to real needs (not just for marketing or acedemic purposes) ?
This is a somewhat subjective question, but I'd say yes. The 2002
standard is not fully supported by any implementation, as far as I
know, but most of it is supported by major commercial implementations,
and they're moving toward full conformance. COBOL's (now standard) OO
features have not proven wildly popular with most COBOL developers, as
far as I can tell, but there are a significant number at least
experimenting with them - questions about OO COBOL pop up from time to
time on comp.lang.cobol.
More recent changes not yet covered by existing standards include
support for XML parsing and generation in the language. That's drawn
quite a lot of interest.
It's not my favorite language (even though it pays my salary), but
the modern version - with free-format source and other conveniences -
is definitely more palatable. COBOL's resistance to modularity (the
separation of data definition and code, for example, and the way the
language structure encourages huge subroutines broken up into
non-parameterized "sections") remains an issue, but in practice
developers have managed to deal with it.
A
apac023
Assembly is better than C++ in certain cases. If memory is an issue on
a microprocessor or some tiny device, then you would you Assembly
because it is more efficient in handling memory and registers. Assembly
is more efficient and faster than C++ in some situations depending on
the coder.
If you don't understand the importance of memory, then you're a fool
who writes inefficient programs of gibberish and doesn't realize it.
a microprocessor or some tiny device, then you would you Assembly
because it is more efficient in handling memory and registers. Assembly
is more efficient and faster than C++ in some situations depending on
the coder.
If you don't understand the importance of memory, then you're a fool
who writes inefficient programs of gibberish and doesn't realize it.
M
Martin Ambuhl
Who cares, for Pete's sake? Neither "assembly" nor C++ is C, but for
some strange reason you posted this vacuity to comp.lang.c
[remainder of useless crap deleted]
A
apac023
what is your problem, Martin Ambuhl? Are you illiterate?
Of course this is for C, but that doesnt mean we can't discuss and
compare the difference between C++, C, and other languages.
I was just following up on the original post, so before you start
making your ignorant comments stop to think for a second.
Of course this is for C, but that doesnt mean we can't discuss and
compare the difference between C++, C, and other languages.
I was just following up on the original post, so before you start
making your ignorant comments stop to think for a second.
M
Michael Mair
Well, I would have called Martin "knowledgeable" and not have
thought of him having a problem.
In fact, you seem to have a problem or two. For example with
quoting the message you are replying to (or parts thereof).
Right, this is what we are doing here in comp.lang.compare... o wait,
we are in comp.lang.c .
In fact, even in clc you can do your comparison as far as it makes
sense. However, I fail to see how a comparison between assembly
language and C++ is relevant in the least round here.
You were not. At least the message headers suggest that you
did not reply to the OP. learn.to/quote might help you communicate
in a more efficient manner. Afterwards, you just have to learn
manners and C.
-Michael
A
apac023
Who are you to tell someone about manners? Thats just rude. How hard is
it to get it in your thick skulls? He made a statement about assembly
and I was just making a comment about his false claim. How is this
wrong to make a defending statement about assembly? I didnt bring up
assembly in the first place. And is it a crime to have accidently
posted in the wrong branch? Give it a rest.
Don't blame me. Why don't you blame him for bringing it up and stop
making idiotic accusations. For example: If I were to call you an idiot
as part as my post, and you tried to defend you're self and make a
response that proves your intelligence if any. According to your
idiotic logic, you were wrong for trying to make a statement in your
defense and then I would post that this isnt the correct group to
discuss intelligence and its your fault for just trying to defend
yourself. (Note this is an extreme but similiar case)
And btw I already know C
it to get it in your thick skulls? He made a statement about assembly
and I was just making a comment about his false claim. How is this
wrong to make a defending statement about assembly? I didnt bring up
assembly in the first place. And is it a crime to have accidently
posted in the wrong branch? Give it a rest.
Don't blame me. Why don't you blame him for bringing it up and stop
making idiotic accusations. For example: If I were to call you an idiot
as part as my post, and you tried to defend you're self and make a
response that proves your intelligence if any. According to your
idiotic logic, you were wrong for trying to make a statement in your
defense and then I would post that this isnt the correct group to
discuss intelligence and its your fault for just trying to defend
yourself. (Note this is an extreme but similiar case)
And btw I already know C
I
infobahn
A
apac023
I never said I wasn't rude. That comment was deliberately made. Theres
no point in point out something so obvious.
responses is pointless and spam, just like this response and everything
the follows. Just drop it.
no point in point out something so obvious.
Wow. Lets just post some more spam. Responding with these question type
responses is pointless and spam, just like this response and everything
the follows. Just drop it.
I
infobahn
[email protected] said:
If you yourself are rude (which you seem to admit here), then you can
hardly complain if others are rude to you.
As for pointing out the obvious, most of the advice given here by
comp.lang.c's regulars is in fact obvious - to them. But not to the
people asking. It seemed to me that it wasn't obvious to you that
your own rudeness invalidated your complaint in the minds of any
disinterested party (such as myself).
This isn't spam by my definition of the word. But you claimed to
know C. I haven't yet seen any evidence to support that claim,
which is why I asked the question.
A
apac023
Dude, give it a rest. Whatever makes you sleep better, I'll admit to.