Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 26th Nov 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Megatux
Gnome "I followed the debate about a successor for the C/C++ combination as the primary language for developing the GNOME core desktop platform very closely last month. There has been discussion about a number of options. What I would like to do on this page is give an overview how a probably less well-known language might be a viable compromise as a C/C++ successor. This language is called Eiffel and exists for over a decade. Eiffel takes the principle of Object-Oriented programming to its extremes and, as a consequence, is a very easy to learn language."
Thread beginning with comment 65171
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Bind me!
by ma_d on Sat 26th Nov 2005 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bind me!"
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

The example eiffel was copied and pasted from their website...

There are more lines of COBOL because it was the only language for the job for an extremely long time. It was the language that the big guns ran. The only people who had those sort of machines were businesses, so managers were making the decisions.

And it continues to this day because no one wants to rewrite that old COBOL code. For a couple reasons:
1.) The company says no, cause that sounds expensive.
2.) They may not even be able to, it'd require someone who knows: COBOL, another language, and can design programs. Oh and the obvious: Works for the company.

So they add on, and add on. Eventually all this code will probably be replaced, but that's gonna take a lot of time!

Why is so much code still out their in FORTRAN? The same reason, the original authors had no other language to use when they learned to use computers; and so later on they used fortran. Eventually they learned a new language, but they're probably in a field where it doesn't make sense to rewrite programs until you absolutely have to (ie, scientific, maybe even engineering).

The expressiveness of COBOL is what makes it hard to learn. I've been watching my roommate learn it. They don't learn anything about programming with COBOL (as in, designing complex systems); they learn all the syntactical and functional niceties that let them modify streams. And they're told that that stuff at the beginning is magic and they don't need to understand it (which scares me).

LOC isn't about writing code, as I said, it's about reading it. English words are generally clutter and should only be used when necessary in control structures.
I really don't see what's so far fetched about that loop. Yes, no one would write _it_, but it's representative of the sort of thing people do write.

LOC isn't very important. It's no reason to throw out a language, but it is annoying.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Bind me!
by on Sun 27th Nov 2005 04:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Bind me!"
Member since:

"And it continues to this day because no one wants to rewrite that old COBOL code. For a couple reasons:
1.) The company says no, cause that sounds expensive.
2.) They may not even be able to, it'd require someone who knows: COBOL, another language, and can design programs. Oh and the obvious: Works for the company. "

Of course, "if it ain't broke...". As for two, there are quite a few COBOL programmers out their. Up in years, but still out their. Same with PL/1 and RPG.

Reply Parent Score: 0