Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:COBOL isn't hard to learn (Score 1) 299

I know what COBOL's data types are... I used to program in it in the mid 80's. My grief is not with its data types, but with its verbosity. As near as I can figure, the strongest (and I would suggest only) argument against using something like C++ or virtually any other modern native compiled language in place of it is because one simply has a pathological fear of anything new or different, and a belief bordering on religious zealotry (with often similar levels of refusal to listen to countering views or opinions) that no other language could ever do what COBOL does.

I get it that COBOL works.... but it's just so godawful tedious to actually develop in that I cannot see a good reason to use it today other than it may bring you a decent paycheque because you have an employer that still uses it. There's more to life than money, however... and it's possible to still make a good living programming in modern languages that are nowhere near as painful to use, so I don't think even that argument is a great one.

Comment Re:COBOL is still quite valid for use... (Score 1) 299

The process you describe for those other systems is exactly what is done with COBOL when it is run on a microcomputer that does not have those native decimal instructions. For what it's worth, intel's binary decimal128 has 34 digits of (exact) precision, which is pretty close, but also has the advantage over COBOL's mechanism of also being able to store an exponent on the number. allowing the same variable to hold values of different orders of magnitude without the application needing to know what those magnitudes are.

Comment Re:COBOL isn't hard to learn (Score 1) 299

All programming languages are tedious as fuck to use.

Only when you try to apply them to problems that are too far removed from their own domain of interest. In my experience, COBOL development is tedious even in the very domain for which it is intended - business oriented programming. You can do everything that you can in COBOL in python, for instance, and the resulting work would be just as readable and far less verbose.

COBOL programs lack elegance... they are the epitome of the saying "everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer".

Comment Re:Challenge accepted (Score 0) 299

You say that now....

COBOL is not at all hard to learn, and bordering on elementary to simply read and comprehend, but its verbosity makes it extremely tedious to develop in. The ease with which COBOL programs can be understood reasonably well simply by reading their code does not go anywhere nearly far enough to justify this amount of labor when it comes to doing actual development.

Comment Re:Denial-of-Service? (Score 1) 111

My point was that experts can teach people what things to look for... that was my point... ideally people will learn about the technology themselves from such people and learn what sort of things they should be looking for when it comes to vulnerabilities.

I'm not suggesting that such education should necessarily be freely given by experts without any compensation, but I don't think it's an unreasonable demand on consumers who don't know how to tell if their devices are secure to put some effort into learning.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score 1) 513

You possess whatever you physically have... you cannot really physically possess territory, although you can occupy it which is a form of possession, but only to the extent that you cannot be removed from it by someone or something else. In nature, the number of things that we truly own is typically quite small. Ownership is slightly more persistent encompassing anything that we possess as well as anything that we *can* possess, but only to the extent that others cannot alter that.

Comment Re:Denial-of-Service? (Score 1) 111

Research, or talking with experts. Ideally, they will learn about the technology themselves, at least enough to recognize when things are not secure. If it isn't too much to expect that children learn how to look both ways before crossing the street, it can't be too much to expect of adults to look before they leap as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

Working...