First computer language

[Jerry Miller]

My bad!  I meant to trim out the end of the digest as well,
but I clicked Send before realizing I hadn't.  I hope this gets
noticed before the original is posted.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Miller" <gamphd at comcast.net>
To: <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: First computer language


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:07:49 +0100
>> From: Tony Arnold <tony.arnold at manchester.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Re: First computer language
>> To: Ubuntu Help and User Discussions <ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com>
>> Message-ID: <1125767269.12266.5.camel at localhost.localdomain>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 14:00 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>> Well, we used to have real coding forms - graph paper would be a cheap
>>> substitute.  You have to remember (well, maybe not :-) ) that, until 
>>> WatBOL
>
> I remember WatFOR from an introductory C.S. course in 1968, and I also
> remember column-specific formats at least as late as 76/77, by which time
> there were terminal-based entry and disk-based storage alternatives to 
> cards.
>
>>> (at least, I'm pretty sure that was the first free-format COBOL), COBOL 
>>> had
>>> to be coded with labels in columns 1-6, a continuation character in 
>>> column
>>> 7, actual code in 8-72, and sequence numbers in 73-80.  The coding forms
>>> would make it easy for the keypunch operator to get it right (because we
>>> used to have to give it to a secretary to get it onto the computer - one
>>> terminal or keypunch machine per 20 or 30 programmers).
>>
>> Ah! Those were the days. My undergraduate days of Computer Science were
>> spent filling in coding forms or punching cards directly. It was really
>> great when the operators dropped your cards and they got muddled up!
>> Those sequence numbers were essential!
>
> I was on a project in the 80's that had a story of an insidious bug from 
> its
> earlier card-deck incarnation that was eventually traced to a pair of 
> cards'
> having switched positions.
>
>>
>>> To answer Bjørn's question, I wouldn't even try to learn COBOL.  Just
>>> because there's a ton of work for COBOL programmers doesn't mean you 
>>> need
>>> to learn it.  In the first place, the amount of COBOL code _should_ be
>>> declining.  I doubt there's a whole lot of new COBOL development.  Also,
>>> I've always believed that once you can program in a couple of languages,
>>> you can program in anything.
>
> As with Tony's response below, I too agree with this assessment as far as
> the learning-curve aspect is concerned.  The problem is that those who are
> unemployed, as I was for over two years ending with a relocation last 
> April,
> can't be that choosy, and the powers that be are seldom sufficiently 
> computer-
> literate themselves to appreciate the ease of acquiring new language 
> skills.
> I work for one of the exceptions, as I have always done since trading in 
> my
> formal education in Organic Chemistry for a career in Computer Science!
>
> <RANT>
> You can see from the laundry lists of specific skills in many classified 
> ads
> that that is the case.  They are looking for the type of person they've 
> always
> had and will, in my estimation, get what they've always gotten, i.e., the
> mindset that makes many business forms as unintelligibly programmer-
> friendly as they've always been.  (Looked at your bank statement lately?
> Where is the heuristic ordering of entries that could go a long way toward
> helping you balance your checkbook?  Even the "state of the art" in online
> banking leaves a lot to be desired!)
>
> The really ironic part is when one of those ads lists a Computer Science
> degree among its requirements.  What self-respecting C.S. Dept. is going
> to teach COBOL these days?!?!?
> </RANT>
>
>  With the advent of Java (yes, I know it
>>> wasn't the first OO language, but it was the first to really catch on),
>>> that changed a bit, because people familiar with many procedural 
>>> languages
>>> still had trouble getting their minds around OO, but still if you can 
>>> write
>>> two or three languages, you'll have no trouble figuring out COBOL.
>>
>> I agree with the above about once you've learnt a couple of languages
>> you can write in anything (with the caveat about OO progs), however, I
>> would include COBOL in the exceptions to this principle! I say this
>> because as an undergraduate I learnt a number of languages and did very
>> well with all of them, except COBOL. I'm not sure of it was the language
>> or the transaction based problem I had to solve was the issue, but I
>> never did get my one COBOL program to work properly!
>>
>> It's ironic, because COBOL was designed to be used by non computer
>> people!
>
> ... and it shows!
>
>>
>> Is it available for LINUX? Just curious, I have no intention of trying
>> it again!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tony.
>> -- 
>> Tony Arnold, IT Security Coordinator, University of Manchester,
>> IT Services Division, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL.
>> T: +44 (0)161 275 6093, F: +44 (0)870 136 1004, M: +44 (0)773 330 0039
>> E: tony.arnold at manchester.ac.uk, H: http://www.man.ac.uk/Tony.Arnold
>>
>>
>>