Andrew Libby wrote:
> 
> My guess is that the need to use COBOL has to do with the present
> investment these companies have in systems already.
> I highly doubt that organizations that are newish are using it (or if
> they are it's minor in comparison to older orgs).
> 
> Now, I do think that a translator would be super cool though.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> Interesting article on the future of COBOL ... perhaps a COBOL to Ruby
>> translator would ease some pain?
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=266228
>>
>>
>>
> 
A COBOL refactoring IDE written in Ruby! Sounds to me like
meta-programming at its finest. At one point long ago, I thought it
would be a good idea to learn COBOL, but I gave up on it and stayed with
FORTRAN and assembler. Then all kinds of interesting things happened,
like character sets including lower case, the Cuban Missile Crisis,
System\360, and the Vietnam War. Maybe now is a good time to take up
COBOL again. :)

Could you say COBOL is a domain-specific language for maintaining COBOL
legacy code?

<ducking>