From: "Judson McClendon" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++,alt.lang.basic References: <8E0A6B90Bjsampsonpostmasterco AT news DOT earthlink DOT net> <9APl3.1054$XG6 DOT 30509 AT dfiatx1-snr1 DOT gtei DOT net> <90_l3.4474$xN4 DOT 43628 AT news3 DOT mia> <7na84u$4d7 AT news3 DOT euro DOT net> Subject: Re: A small bussiness billing application Lines: 80 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:18:41 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.214.104.156 X-Trace: news4.mia 932753936 209.214.104.156 (Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:18:56 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:18:56 EDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Martijn Lievaart wrote: >Judson McClendon wrote >>As both a BASIC and COBOL (at least) programmer yourself, would >>you choose BASIC with no decimal variables over COBOL, to write >>financial applications, assuming both were available? > >As a multi language programmer that wrote financial applications in (a.o.) >COBOL and BASIC, if I have to choose from those two, it'll be BASIC. > >The only reason for choosing COBOL here would be portability. If portability >is of any concern, you can rule out BASIC anyhow, so your question becomes >non-sensible then. I see you misapprehend what is important about COBOL. The vast majority of COBOL programs are custom tailored code, written for a specific task for one organization. This makes portability a second level issue. Why do you think there are 30+ year old COBOL programs around? How many even 10 year old C programs are still in active use, even though C has been around since the 70's? COBOL isn't brain dead, it is very simple. Remember, this isn't a question of which is the 'best' language. Such a question misses the point of tools. It is like asking 'Which is best, a hammer or a screwdriver?" The answer is "It depends on the task to be done with it." There is no 'best' tool, and no 'best' programming language, and there never will be. Computer languages, like any other tool ever devised by man, are more or less applicable to certain kinds of tasks. No tool is best for every task, and no programming language is best for every programming task. My point about the compiler in COBOL was simply to say that just because you can do something in a certain language is no sign that it is a good choice. It is true that COBOL was created before structured programming was a gleam in anybody's eye, not to mention OO. But the language has been updated in a number of ways to make it support much more structured programming techniques, and the new standard under development supports OO. The fact is this: There exists no programming language in which large business applications can be developed more quickly, cheaply or reliably than in COBOL. The 'conventional wisdom' you are speaking from is more than 10 years out of date, and most large enterprise sized organizations are well aware of the fact. Based on a recent (3-4 months old) massive survey of over 1500 such agencies, several other facts are clear. One is that the great majority of them (> 80% as I recall) plan on increasing their use of COBOL to develop new applications. The reasons are very easy to understand. Industry wide, only 16% of the attempts to rewrite COBOL based mainframe apps using newer technologies have been successful. The remaining 84% failed, from massive cost and/or time overruns, failure to meet design goals, and extremely poor reliability, compared to mainframe based COBOL systems. This is not an opinion, but hard, cold fact. For example, a front page article in the Wall Street Journal (about a year ago) explained how a number of large companies had spent millions on the newer technology just to learn that, not only did it cost a whole lot more, but even when it worked it did not work nearly as well as had their old COBOL systems, some of them 20 years old. That article reported that a number of those large companies had already rewritten some of their systems in COBOL to much better results, and more are on the way. The difference in costs between writing and debugging a large business system in C/C++ vs. COBOL is almost staggering. But my point here is not to push COBOL, and certainly not to attack BASIC or any other language. My point is that tools are designed for different purposes. BASIC and C/C++ are general purpose programming languages, and neither was designed with an eye toward financial programming. I is not reasonable or logical to expect them to do every single task better than other languages designed specifically for those tasks. I love BASIC, and have used it by choice almost every day since 1975. Yes, I have written financial applications in BASIC, but it was not my language of choice for that. I also like COBOL, not because it is fun, but because it is very good for certain tasks, even though it is very poor for other tasks. The wise programmer doesn't cling to a specific programming language, but looks at them objectively. It is just as important to see the warts as it is to see the beauty. Learn as many languages as you can, and use each of them for tasks where they make the most sense. -- Judson McClendon judmc123 AT bellsouth DOT net (remove numbers) Sun Valley Systems http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~judmc "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."