XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 07/01/2026 06:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:   
   > On 2026-01-06, Dan Cross  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article <10jjg7k$5l5$2@dont-email.me>,   
   >> The Natural Philosopher   wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 06/01/2026 14:46, Peter Flass wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/6/26 03:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   From what little I know COBOL looked very like assembler.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >>>> Nothing at all like it. Higher-level than C, for example.   
   >>>   
   >>> Well I will simply disagree. Business transactions are very simple beasts.   
   >   
   > You've never worked on a payroll system, have you?   
   Yes. I have,   
      
   >   
   >> I think it's best to think of COBOL as a DSL for business data   
   >> processing.  Sure, one can write a compiler in it...but one can   
   >> also write a compiler in `sed`.  Outside of a satisfying a dare   
   >> or winning a bet, it doesn't seem like a very good idea.   
   >   
   > A friend once wrote an 8080 cross-assembler in COBOL.   
   > It ran rings around Univac's official cross-assembler -   
   > which was written in FORTRAN.   
   >   
      
   --   
   “The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that   
   the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."   
      
       - Bertrand Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)