Re: Why is Cobol ignored in compiler textbooks?

The One True Compiler Book :-), ignoring the buggy figures:


%T Understanding and Writing Compilers
%A Richard Bornat
%I Macmillan
%D 1979
%K explains parsing


does talk a little about COBOL.


>Also, the _problem_ of the ALTER verb changing the target of a GO TO.


Unless my memory is really playing tricks, this has been a non-problem for
years. The 1974 COBOL standard deleted ALTER, as I recall. Even then, it
was recognised as a botch.


>[It's true, far too many people dismiss Cobol with a not terribly well
>informed "ugh." It's certainly verbose, but there are things that it does
>well. -John]


I'll admit that I have been out of touch with COBOL for some years now,
but unless it has changed radically since about 1980, I'd still say "ugh".
The things COBOL does well are really not offset by its defects. (I
suppose I should throw in the obligatory joke: I haven't seen the
object-oriented version of COBOL, "ADD 1 TO COBOL". :-)
--
Geoff Collyer world.std.com!geoff, uunet.uu.net!geoff
[How about the report writer? Sort of like paleolithic awk. -John]
--

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