According to the Computerworld article Cobol: Not Dead Yet, Cobol may be the Rodney Dangerfield of programming languages but it also can't be beat for such uses as batch processing. Its defenders claim that Cobol is easier to learn, write, read, and manage that OO languages. Is Cobol as rock-solid as its proponents make it out to be? Are Cobol programmers dinosaurs, or are they vital to maintain all of the Cobol apps still operational in mainframe environments?
Given that Cobol can be compiled to run on Windows, Unix and Linux servers, so why isn't more of that occurring? Why are so many perfectly good Cobol applications being ported to Java or C#? What's the business case for this? What's the programming case?
________________________________
Related Articles and Opinion:
- Cobol: Not Dead Yet
- Cobol's Batch Advantage
- Cobol Coders: Going, Going, Gone?
- Get Me a Rewrite!
- Duty Calls
- Robert L. Mitchell: Cobol not so procedural after all
- Sound Off: Cobol versus Java and C#
- Robert L. Mitchell: How they learned to stop worrying and love Cobol
- Computerworld Input Output: Cobol's Rodney Dangerfield routine; PCI update not enough?
- Martin MC Brown: 10 programming languages to learn
- Shark Tank: Think Global, Act Loco