Matt Lawrence wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Don't dismiss all of the ideas in COBOL so quickly.  For decades it has
> been the only mainstream language to do decimal arithmatic.  It also has
> some excellent page formatting capabilities, also missing from
> mainstream languages.
> 
> All of this can easily be done in Ruby, unlike many other languages.

Ah ... so Ruby is not mainstream? Perhaps an ability to refactor legacy
COBOL will make it mainstream in spades!!

I always wondered why decimal arithmetic was built in to microprocessors
from day one, while floating point was added only later. Now I know ...
more COBOL legacy code than FORTRAN legacy code. :)

Page formatting? Isn't that built into Perl, which I think is
"mainstream"? "Practical Extraction and *Reporting* Language", right?