Re: A Plain English Compiler

Gene Wirchenko <gene@abhost.us>
12 Mar 2006 13:54:14 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: A Plain English Compiler ang.usenet@gmail.com (Aaron Gray) (2006-02-19)
Re: A Plain English Compiler kst-u@mib.org (Keith Thompson) (2006-02-19)
A Plain English Compiler djg@tramontana.co.hu (DEÁK JAHN, Gábor) (2006-02-19)
Re: A Plain English Compiler toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2006-02-20)
Re: A Plain English Compiler help@osmosian.com (2006-02-20)
Re: A Plain English Compiler tameri@comcast.net (Scott Wyatt) (2006-02-24)
Re: A Plain English Compiler gene@abhost.us (Gene Wirchenko) (2006-03-12)
Re: A Plain English Compiler gerry.rzeppa@pobox.com (2014-10-24)
Re: A Plain English Compiler lesliedellow@gmail.com (2014-10-25)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Gene Wirchenko <gene@abhost.us>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Mar 2006 13:54:14 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-02-122 06-02-169
Keywords: design, Cobol, comment
Posted-Date: 12 Mar 2006 13:54:14 EST

Scott Wyatt <tameri@comcast.net> wrote:


[snip]


>[My understanding was that the hope for Cobol was not that it would be
>any easier to write than other languages, but that it would be easier
>for non-experts to read. One can debate how well they met that
>goal. -John]


          Reading is one thing. Understanding is another.


Sincerely,


Gene Wirchenko
[The hierarchically structured data was great. The verbose arithmetic less
so. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.