Cobol today
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: How to talk like a programmer
Next: Ping Warren Simmons
From: Anonymous on 1 Jun 2010 08:20 In article <1636d465-1598-4f5d-815d-a23b6d8fe052(a)d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On May 31, 4:05?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: [snip] >> Of course... that doesn't allow a participant to toss off a 'you just >> don't know what you're talking about' without running the risk of >> appearing a fool... but what is Life without a bit of Risk? > >If we can not get our definitions right, etc., then is it more a >wonder that our code ever works? Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, Mr Maclean; if one defines 'our code works' as 'the writing of source-statements causes a paycheck to clear an appropriately-directed bank account (or a reasonable technological facsimile thereof, eg 'direct deposit') then it seems that things have been working for a few posters here for decades and decades. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Jun 2010 10:32 On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:34:41 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >There seems to be some kind of "cuddle blanket" effect in thinking that a >language is popular. Should it matter? Only as far as getting practitioners >of it and support for it, I would've thought. Programming languages should >not be selected based on their popularity; they should be selected on their >cost and fit for purpose. If their purpose is to make a company more profitable, then "getting practitioners of it and support for it" can be at the top of the list in such a selection process. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Fritz Wuehler on 1 Jun 2010 11:02 Physician, heal thyself (get an education instead of babbling!)
From: Anonymous on 1 Jun 2010 11:11 In article <bc58ea4fe287bdace41d37d77768c646(a)msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, Fritz Wuehler <fritz(a)spamexpire-201006.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: >Physician, heal thyself (get an education instead of babbling!) Mr Wuehler, that's a bit cryptic... might you be so kind as to offer an example of the behavior of which you disapprove? Start with the definitions I've posited and feel free to move forward from there. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Jun 2010 11:27
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Alistair Maclean <alistair.j.l.maclean(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >If we can not get our definitions right, etc., then is it more a >wonder that our code ever works? Often times it doesn't matter that definitions can vary across the industry. If my user calls a file a database, and I understand what he means, I will work with him. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |