Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: [xml-dev] You call that a standard?)
- From: "Ken North" <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 12:09:49 -0700
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <002201c42eea$1b3c5420$1601a8c0@DURANTE> <email@example.com>
> > Has COBOL persisted because it's elegant, or because it's a standard?
> or it's just embedded?
A lot of legacy code was written in COBOL in the first place because of the
standard. Because it was a standard, the government and large corporations
mandated the use of COBOL. The standards factor was also why ISVs used COBOL in
the 60s and 70s when they wanted to create portable, multi-platform applications
to sell into the largest possible market.
There was some offlist e-mail about whether COBOL had been used for new projects
in recent years:
1. Deutsche Bank recently updated a Windows COBOL application to use XML for
2. Micro Focus sells an Object COBOL compiler that generates code for .NET CLR
3. ISO published a COBOL:2003 TR about garbage collecting objects.