Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-programming (118 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [suse-programming-e] Programming standards!
  • From: Colin Carter <colincarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:07:46 +1000
  • Message-id: <200504161207.46647.colincarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi fellows. Sorry I missed the big debate. I was asleep (literally, because
I am in Sydney, Australia). continue below...

On Friday 15 April 2005 23:41, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On Friday 15 April 2005 8:50 am, Colin Carter wrote:
> > If you're an old COBOL guy you are probably aware that a very large
> > proportion of today's active code is still in COBOL (and FORTRAN).
> Yes. My first language was FORTRAN on an IBM 7044. I learned COBOL and
> Assembler a bit later.
My first machine was a smaller version ("desk top"), prior to these big ones;
followed by an IBM, which I think was a 7095? (Big boy of the military era.)
FORTRAN, Assembler, COBOL = normal learning curve, but I never worked COBOL.
> There are very few new applications written in COBOL, but there are COBOL
> compilers available on all systems.
You may be correct about COBOL now, but only a few years ago I was
reading that most of the active code (mostly written years ago for the big
insurance companies, banks et cetera) was still COBOL. Maybe!

> BTW: I am aware of the memory layouts of both the AMD64 (in both 32-bit and
> 64-bit mode) as well as EM64T (Intel's x86-64) as well as the Itanium.
I'll have to pick your brains on this one if I am to code the AMD64
properly. :-)


> But, going back to standards. I was involved in porting some Burroughs
> COBOL apps to IBM 370 COBOL. What a mess:
> nybbles.
Yeah man! I don't heard this word much these days.
Remember 7 bit ASCII code?

Some people think that BCD numbers were stupid; not realizing that they
were important in money handling (preventing the crooked programmer
from snip the part cent/penny).

> Jerry Feldman <gaf@xxxxxxx>


< Previous Next >