From: news@cct-net.co.uk   
      
   On 12/11/2025 00:57, Arne Vajhøj wrote:   
   > On 11/11/2025 3:59 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:23:29 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:   
   >>> Well, Cobol represents practices of 1960 business data processing.   
   >>> At that time it was state of the art. But state of the art changed.   
   >>> Cobol somewhat adapted but it slow to this.   
   >>   
   >> The example I like to mention is the rise of the SQL DBMS. These   
   >> became very important for “business data processingâ€� use in the 1980s.   
   >   
   > Yes.   
   >   
   > And the preferred languages was Cobol and PL/I.   
   >   
   >> But the best way to interface to one of these is by dynamically   
   >> generating SQL command strings.   
   >   
   > If you are writing a hobby program the math looks like:   
   >   
   > dynamic SQL strings : 2 minutes of work to write code   
   >   
   > the right way : 30 minutes of work to write code   
   >   
   > If you are writing a program for doing account operations in   
   > a bank expect:   
   >   
   > dynamic SQL strings : 2 minutes of work to write code + 60 minutes   
   > review time for each of 5 senior engineers   
   >   
   > the right way : 30 minutes of work to write code   
   >   
   >>                                  
   Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  And guess what: dynamic string   
   >> handling is something that was specifically left out of COBOL, because   
   >> it was not seen as important for “businessâ€� use.   
   >   
   > Nonsense.   
   >   
   > Cobol does dynamic string handling just fine.   
   >   
   > Not as good as Java, Python, PHP and other newer languages.   
   >   
   > But better than Fortran, C and many other common languages   
   > back then.   
   >   
   > (and I believe we have told you so before)   
      
   Basic does it fairly well   
      
   --   
   Chris   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)