On 23 Jul 2022 23:50:45 GMT
Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 19:32:03 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher wrote:
> >
> > This development occurred in a large (1000+ branch) banking environment.
> > When we got specs from the users, they were along the lines of
> > you MULTIPLY the ACCOUNT BALANCE by the MONTHLY INTEREST RATE,
> > giving the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT.
> > you then ADD the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT to the ACCOUNT BALANCE,
> > giving the ADJUSTED ACCOUNT BALANCE.
> > which a programmer might convert into
> > MULTIPLY ACCOUNT-BALANCE BY MONTHLY-INTEREST-RATE GIVING INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT.
> > ADD INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOUNT-BALANCE GIVING ADJUSTED-ACCOUNT-BALANCE.
> >
> > The convenience was that the user's description /was/ the program code.
>
> Good luck finding white collar droids
> now-a-days that can write that clearly!
>

Even in those days it might have been

SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
SET OFILE-ADJACCTBAL = IFILE-ACCTBAL + 0800-INTADJ

or somesuch "standard"

> Ya, a couple hundred years ago I was a programmer in a corporate-captive
> service company that did the data processing for 25 or so branch banks.
> Did PL/1 and assembler -- mostly on the systems side versus applications.
> The specs that came down for projects was always well defined and detailed.
>
> I don't think that's the case these days.
>
> Jonesy

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> writes:

> On 23 Jul 2022 23:50:45 GMT
> Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 19:32:03 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> >
>> > This development occurred in a large (1000+ branch) banking environment.
>> > When we got specs from the users, they were along the lines of
>> > you MULTIPLY the ACCOUNT BALANCE by the MONTHLY INTEREST RATE,
>> > giving the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT.
>> > you then ADD the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT to the ACCOUNT BALANCE,
>> > giving the ADJUSTED ACCOUNT BALANCE.
>> > which a programmer might convert into
>> > MULTIPLY ACCOUNT-BALANCE BY MONTHLY-INTEREST-RATE GIVING INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT.
>> > ADD INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOUNT-BALANCE GIVING ADJUSTED-ACCOUNT-BALANCE.
>> >
>> > The convenience was that the user's description /was/ the program code.
>>
>> Good luck finding white collar droids
>> now-a-days that can write that clearly!
>>
>
> Even in those days it might have been
>
> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
> SET OFILE-ADJACCTBAL = IFILE-ACCTBAL + 0800-INTADJ
>
> or somesuch "standard"

I can't recall seeing code that bad.
The language lends itself to using very consistent naming.
Most places I worked you could predict character for character what a
block of code would look like.

--
Dan Espen

> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR

More like

MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.

or

COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.

De

On 7/24/22 4:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2022 23:50:45 GMT
> Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 19:32:03 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>
>>> This development occurred in a large (1000+ branch) banking environment.
>>> When we got specs from the users, they were along the lines of
>>> you MULTIPLY the ACCOUNT BALANCE by the MONTHLY INTEREST RATE,
>>> giving the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT.
>>> you then ADD the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT to the ACCOUNT BALANCE,
>>> giving the ADJUSTED ACCOUNT BALANCE.
>>> which a programmer might convert into
>>> MULTIPLY ACCOUNT-BALANCE BY MONTHLY-INTEREST-RATE GIVING INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT.
>>> ADD INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOUNT-BALANCE GIVING ADJUSTED-ACCOUNT-BALANCE.
>>>
>>> The convenience was that the user's description /was/ the program code.
>>
>> Good luck finding white collar droids
>> now-a-days that can write that clearly!
>>
>
> Even in those days it might have been
>
> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
> SET OFILE-ADJACCTBAL = IFILE-ACCTBAL + 0800-INTADJ
>
> or somesuch "standard"

Heh heh .... yea, we all get sick of writing out
long "descriptive names" and "self documenting"
code. Something about it just grates on the soul,
impedes the creative impulse.

On 7/23/22 6:23 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>> On 7/19/22 10:50 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 22:34:40 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/19/22 3:48 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 11:58:29 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/07/2022 18:48, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>>> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> Amazing how many institutions STILL run COBOL apps writ
>>>>>>>>> during the 60s by the guys with skinny ties. They work
>>>>>>>>> very well, they're too expensive to re-do, so ....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's probably a COBOL->C++ or JAVA translator out
>>>>>>>>> there somewhere ... but money's so tight these days
>>>>>>>>> and so many of those legacy apps are so super-critical
>>>>>>>>> that they just can't/won't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe these are better than translators I have seen, but old ones produced
>>>>>>>> unreadable code, and they might well miss some litte tricks that the old
>>>>>>>> guys put in, and so leave time-bombs in the translated program. Much more
>>>>>>>> expensive, but a lot better, is to extract the specs from the existing
>>>>>>>> code, and there are re-engineering programs that can probably do a lot of
>>>>>>>> that work, and then rewrite in the new language using programmers skilled
>>>>>>>> in that language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TBH you cant do many tricks in COBOL and the whole thrust of the bloody
>>>>>>> language is 'do it by the book, and write the book as documentation, as
>>>>>>> well'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much would you like to bet? Yes, the language encourages
>>>>>> straightforward programming, but I’ve seen things…
>>>>>
>>>>> A long time ago, I worked on many COBOL applications, including a
>>>>> client (PC) / server (MVS) communications application. I've seen
>>>>> things that I cannot unsee, coded things that I cannot uncode.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Got any of it on a floppy or print-out anywhere ? I'd
>>>> love to see how to do client/server only using COBOL.
>>>
>>> Both client and server used the same COBOL codebase, but with
>>> different compilers and operating environments.
>>>
>>> The client was coded in Microfocus "Visual Object (VISOC)" COBOL
>>> and ran on Windows NT 3 and Windows NT 4.1, using a TCP/IP to SNA
>>> (terminal communications) connection.
>>>
>>> The server was coded in IBM COBOL and ran under IMS DC on an MVS
>>> system, using an SNA terminal LU as it's communications endpoint.
>>>
>>> As this was an in-house "inner platform" project (3 tier client/server
>>> architecture, circa 1990), I did not keep personal copies of any
>>> of the code. Suffice it to say that my first question to the architect,
>>> my first day on that project, was "Why COBOL?" The answer was "Because
>>> that's what the coders know."
>>
>>
>> Sometimes that IS a factor ... you have to have people who
>> can write it. But 1990 ... IMHO it should have been 'C'.
>>
>
> IMNSHO, COBOL. C is a terrible language for those types of language. Things
> that are so dimple in COBOL, like moving a character string with blank
> fill, or formatting numeric output, requires calling subroutines in C, and
> lack of length checking on string moves is a recipe for disaster.
>
> I have used both languages quite a bit, perhaps COBOL more, years ago, but
> neither is my preferred language, so I have no dog in this fight.

Sorry, I like 'C' - and have writ little functions, MY way,
to do a lot of the things you were talking about.

Only ASM gives you more control - and I've done my share of
that over the years too.

>
>>
>> Mostly I like "terse" languages - less typing and lots
>> of room left over for comments at the ends of the lines.
>
> Sounds like assembler ;-)

YES ! :-)

ASM ... MMmmmmmmm !

> It’s too easy to write tricky code with side-effects in C. COBOL might not
> be as self-documenting as advertised, but the operation of each statement
> is pretty obvious and easily understood.

So ... COBOL is for BAD PROGRAMMERS who can't foresee
downstream consequences hmmm ??? ;-)

On 7/20/22 1:16 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-07-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> COBOL IME was generally written by teams of coders after the analysts
>> had written the specification, to strict coding standards which if not
>> adhered to got you the sack.
>
> I once wrote some programs in a shop where I was given specs that were
> so detailed that I could probably have written a compiler for them.
> Unfortunately, I identified a number of cases that the specs didn't cover.
> When I asked about this, I was given the answer which is now at the top
> of my list of Famous Last Words: "Oh, don't worry about that - it'll
> never happen." Since I had enough experience by this time to know that
> "never" is usually about six months, I refused to proceed until all
> cases were accounted for. Beware of nasal demons!

The Bosses NEVER really understand what they're asking
for. That's not their function. They are task-masters,
not sages. THEIR bosses are even MORE oblivious, and
vengeful.

GET OUT of such establishments as FAST as possible even
IF it means less money. At least you'll still have your
pride and soul.

As I've said - what started as a Good Thing very quickly
became 'Dilbert' once Big Corporate got involved.

I always have this vision of a young Van Gogh getting a
steady job at "Popular Art (Amsterdam) Inc" ............

> As for coding standards, this shop's standards were so inefficient
> that it would take a job half an hour just to schedule, let alone run.
> I threw their precious standards into the trash can and wrote the system
> my way, which scheduled and ran in 30 seconds. When I was met with
> the predictable howls of anguish, I told them that I wanted to get things
> tested in a reasonable amount of time, and if they really wanted their
> standards that badly they could change it back when I was done.
> I doubt they ever did.

"Procedure" gives the Bosses an excuse for their paychecks.
Doing things fast and efficiently cuts them out - makes them
look as useless as they really are.

I was always able to find smaller outfits where Fast,
Efficient and Creative was coveted and appreciated.
I could identify Needs they didn't know existed and
act on them. The checks weren't quite as big - but ....

On 7/19/22 8:27 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-07-19, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> These days, of course, we’re awash in memory and it’s not worth doing
>> a lot of work to save a few bytes; not like the old days.
>
> In _The Mythical Man-Month_, Fred Brooks describes the decision to save
> 100 bytes by not having the date routine handle leap years.

Well, it's only wrong 25% of the time ... :-)

And hey, depending on the era and hardware, 100 bytes
MIGHT be critical.

Program micro-controllers ? I've done a number of apps
for them. You DO have to cut corners. 64-128 BYTES of RAM,
1k to 4K of EEPROM (or UV-Erase PROM) if you were lucky.

I still have a fondness for the PIC12-xxx series - 8-pin
wonders. Forget 'C' - go all ASM. ATMELs or AVRs might be
a little better these days. PIC32s - supercomputers ! :-)

Anyway, the bosses/taskmasters have to justify their
existence/paychecks ..... stupid decisions that SOUND
good gets them that. THEIR bosses are 10x MORE
oblivious - buzzword driven, dazzled by cost/profit
projection charts ...

CorpComp - it's all 'Dilbert' now. No wonder Winders
sucks - indeed is a National Security Threat.

Still have my UV-C box for erasing "JW" PIC chips.
That smell of ozone and NOx......

On 2022-07-24, 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:

> FORTRAN is still pretty widely used also, esp in academic
> and engineering environments, mostly due to the huge volume
> of proven hard-core math routines which nobody wants to
> re-write.

Many rivals, with the benefit of hindsight, have crossed
swords with the old workhorse! Yet FORTRAN gallops on,
warts and all, more transportable than syphilis, fired
by a bottomless pit of working subprograms.
-- Stan Kelly-Bootle: The Devil's DP Dictionary

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-07-25, 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:

> I was always able to find smaller outfits where Fast,
> Efficient and Creative was coveted and appreciated.
> I could identify Needs they didn't know existed and
> act on them. The checks weren't quite as big - but ....

I've always gravitated toward smaller outfits . When I left $BIGCORP
for a smaller one, the hiring personnel director was baffled that
I would come to a job that paid less. But I got my sanity back,
and since the new establishment was closer to home, I saved $200
per month on gas plus a lot of commute time.

(Ten years later that outfit went Dilbert too, but that's another story.)

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

"25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>
> Heh heh .... yea, we all get sick of writing out
> long "descriptive names" and "self documenting"
> code. Something about it just grates on the soul,
> impedes the creative impulse.
>
I was probably a bit different from most people in that I went from BASIC to
COBOL within a very short period of time back in the 1980s.

I still have some source files from that time.I have no idea what the BASIC
programs were doing and, more the point, *how* they did it. When you get lines
like:

740 !#H9 TAB(10),C$," ",E$,A$,TAB(22),D$,A$,E$
745 K7$=" "+D$+"M"+A$+E$\ WRITE#5,K7$\!">>>",K7$,"<"
750 GOTO460
760 READ#1%L,&X
770 M5=(X+O+1)
780 A=A7(M5)\B=B7(M5)
790 A$=A7$(2*M5-1,2*M5)
800 B$=B7$(10*M5-9,10*M5)
810 B$=B$(1,(B8(M5)))
820 RETURN

and then find COBOL lines like this:

0352 NEW-ORDER.
0353 DISPLAY SCREEN-CLEAR LINE-FEEDS LINE-FEEDS.
0354 PERFORM TYPE-CUST.
0355
0356 MOVE " * ORDER FROM " TO PAPER-TYPE.
0357 MOVE CUST-NAME TO ORGANISATION-D.
0358 MOVE CUST-CODE TO WHO.
0359 MOVE MONTH-S TO WHEN-MONTH.
0360 MOVE YEAR-S TO WHEN-YEAR.
0361 OPEN OUTPUT ORDER-FILE.
0362 MOVE HEADER-TYPE TO HEADER-TYPE-D.
0363 MOVE " * O/No " TO FORM-TYPE.
0364 PERFORM NEW-ORD-1.

it's easy to know which language's source-code I prefer to read after not
seeing them for years.

Jack

--
Why do meteorites always land in craters?

On 2022-07-24 00:23, Peter Flass wrote:
> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>> Sometimes that IS a factor ... you have to have people who
>> can write it. But 1990 ... IMHO it should have been 'C'.
>>
>
> IMNSHO, COBOL. C is a terrible language for those types of language.
Things
> that are so dimple in COBOL, like moving a character string with blank
> fill, or formatting numeric output, requires calling subroutines in
C, and
> lack of length checking on string moves is a recipe for disaster.
This is one of the weirder arguments I've ever seen:
"requires calling a subroutine in C". As if that somehow is a problem?
Not to mention it's a function, and not a subroutine. Any claim of "used
the language quite a bit" sounds hollow after that.

A statement to move a character string in COBOL will in the end be a
subroutine call as well.

And lack of length checking depends on the function. Nothing prevents
you from using strncpy in C. Or write your own, with whatever
characteristic you want. It will actually be pretty efficient.
Comparable to the provided functions.

> I have used both languages quite a bit, perhaps COBOL more, years
ago, but
> neither is my preferred language, so I have no dog in this fight.
> …
Seems like your C is both rusty and bad.

>> Mostly I like "terse" languages - less typing and lots
>> of room left over for comments at the ends of the lines.
>
> Sounds like assembler ;-)
>
> It’s too easy to write tricky code with side-effects in C. COBOL
might not
> be as self-documenting as advertised, but the operation of each statement
> is pretty obvious and easily understood.
What kind of side effects are we talking about? The operation of each
statement in C is very obvious and easy to understand.
Most people get into trouble because of memory handling. Not the
language semantics.
But that is where you get to the point where things gets even harder to
even do in COBOL. And if you manage to do it, it won't be easily understood.

Johnny

On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 00:02:14 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
> On 7/24/22 4:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On 23 Jul 2022 23:50:45 GMT
>> Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 19:32:03 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This development occurred in a large (1000+ branch) banking environment.
>>>> When we got specs from the users, they were along the lines of
>>>> you MULTIPLY the ACCOUNT BALANCE by the MONTHLY INTEREST RATE,
>>>> giving the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT.
>>>> you then ADD the INTEREST ADJUSTMENT to the ACCOUNT BALANCE,
>>>> giving the ADJUSTED ACCOUNT BALANCE.
>>>> which a programmer might convert into
>>>> MULTIPLY ACCOUNT-BALANCE BY MONTHLY-INTEREST-RATE GIVING INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT.
>>>> ADD INTEREST-ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOUNT-BALANCE GIVING ADJUSTED-ACCOUNT-BALANCE.
>>>>
>>>> The convenience was that the user's description /was/ the program code.
>>>
>>> Good luck finding white collar droids
>>> now-a-days that can write that clearly!
>>
>> Even in those days it might have been
>>
>> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
>> SET OFILE-ADJACCTBAL = IFILE-ACCTBAL + 0800-INTADJ
>>
>> or somesuch "standard"
>
> Heh heh .... yea, we all get sick of writing out
> long "descriptive names" and "self documenting"
> code. Something about it just grates on the soul,
> impedes the creative impulse.

I can envision change requests and new development requirements
being *text'ed* into the programming departments these days.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | Marvin | W3DHJ.net | linux
38.238N 104.547W | @ jonz.net | Jonesy | FreeBSD
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm

drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
> > SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
>
>More like
>
> MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.
>
>or
>
> COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.
>
>De

Or,

1150-CK-TIME.
IF KLINGONS > 0
ACCEPT WS-TIME FROM TIME
MOVE WS-MIN OF WS-TIME TO DS-MIN
PERFORM 1145-CK-FLAG THRU 1145-EXIT
MOVE WS-SEC OF WS-TIME TO DS-SEC
MOVE DS-TABLE TO S-DATE
ELSE
GO TO 1150-EXIT.
COMPUTE T-STORE = DS-DATE - S-DATE.
IF T-STORE < 90 AND NOT KLINGONS-ATTACKING
MOVE 14 TO MAX-NO
COMPUTE W = ((HQ2 - 1) * 14)
COMPUTE Z = ((HQ1 - 1) * 14)
INSPECT MASTER-TBL REPLACING ALL "K" BY " "
MOVE 0 TO RX
PERFORM 1170-MOVE-ON-HQ THRU 1170-EXIT
VARYING KCTR FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL KCTR > KLINGONS
MOVE 1 TO ATTACK-FLAG
PERFORM 5900-TRANS THRU 5900-EXIT
IF (Q1 NOT = HQ1 OR Q2 NOT = HQ2)
DISPLAY "WARNING - STAR DATE: " S-DATE
DISPLAY "SCIENCE OFFICER SPOCK ADVISES"
DISPLAY "YOU NAVIGATE TO QUADRANT " HQ1 "," HQ2
DISPLAY "TO DEFEND STAR FLEET HEADQUARTERS".
IF NOT TOO-LATE
MOVE DS-DATE TO WS-DATE.
IF S-DATE > WS-DATE AND Q1 = HQ1 AND Q2 = HQ2 AND NOT TOO-LAT
- E
MOVE 1 TO TOO-LATE-FLAG
ADD 230 TO WS-DATE
ELSE
IF S-DATE > WS-DATE
MOVE 1 TO INDICATE-X
PERFORM 8200-CK-DONE THRU 8200-EXIT.
1150-EXIT. EXIT.

:-)

Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>On 2022-07-24 00:23, Peter Flass wrote:
> > 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
> >> Sometimes that IS a factor ... you have to have people who
> >> can write it. But 1990 ... IMHO it should have been 'C'.
> >>
> >
> > IMNSHO, COBOL. C is a terrible language for those types of language.
>Things
> > that are so dimple in COBOL, like moving a character string with blank
> > fill, or formatting numeric output, requires calling subroutines in
>C, and
> > lack of length checking on string moves is a recipe for disaster.
>This is one of the weirder arguments I've ever seen:
>"requires calling a subroutine in C". As if that somehow is a problem?
>Not to mention it's a function, and not a subroutine. Any claim of "used
>the language quite a bit" sounds hollow after that.

I suspect the poster was indicating that COBOL will generate the call
under the covers, while in C the programmer must code the call explicitly.

>
>A statement to move a character string in COBOL will in the end be a
>subroutine call as well.

Not on all systems, for example:

INSPECT COURSE-B REPLACING ALL " " BY ZEROS. 531 CARD 1 65864
01 065864 MVN 110607 000774 100008 CODE
01 065882 SEA 39B101 400000 600000 050384 CODE
01 065906 NEQ 25 0C065962 CODE
01 065916 MVA 10A202 F0F0F0 400000 CODE
01 065934 INC 01A107 200000 100008 CODE
01 065952 BUN 27 0C065882 CODE
or
MOVE "THIS IS A TEST" TO TEST-STRING. 235 CARD 1 109910
01 109910 MVA 101420 211148 213500 CODE

MVN -> Move numeric (moves 1 to 100 digits or zoned-digit bytes, truncating or padding)
MVA -> Move alpha (moves 1 to 100 bytes, truncating or padding the receiving field)
SEA -> Search memory (in this case, for the single byte EBCDIC space (0x40) character).
NEQ -> Branch if SEA didn't find search string.
INC -> Increment receiving field (by 2 in this case)
BUN -> Branch unconditionally.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 13:52:19 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
> > > SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
> >
> >More like
> >
> > MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.
> >
> >or
> >
> > COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.
> >
> >De
>
> Or,
>
> 1150-CK-TIME.
> IF KLINGONS > 0
> ACCEPT WS-TIME FROM TIME
> MOVE WS-MIN OF WS-TIME TO DS-MIN
> PERFORM 1145-CK-FLAG THRU 1145-EXIT
> MOVE WS-SEC OF WS-TIME TO DS-SEC
> MOVE DS-TABLE TO S-DATE
> ELSE
> GO TO 1150-EXIT.
> COMPUTE T-STORE = DS-DATE - S-DATE.
> IF T-STORE < 90 AND NOT KLINGONS-ATTACKING
> MOVE 14 TO MAX-NO
> COMPUTE W = ((HQ2 - 1) * 14)
> COMPUTE Z = ((HQ1 - 1) * 14)
> INSPECT MASTER-TBL REPLACING ALL "K" BY " "
> MOVE 0 TO RX
> PERFORM 1170-MOVE-ON-HQ THRU 1170-EXIT
> VARYING KCTR FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL KCTR > KLINGONS
> MOVE 1 TO ATTACK-FLAG
> PERFORM 5900-TRANS THRU 5900-EXIT
> IF (Q1 NOT = HQ1 OR Q2 NOT = HQ2)
> DISPLAY "WARNING - STAR DATE: " S-DATE
> DISPLAY "SCIENCE OFFICER SPOCK ADVISES"
> DISPLAY "YOU NAVIGATE TO QUADRANT " HQ1 "," HQ2
> DISPLAY "TO DEFEND STAR FLEET HEADQUARTERS".
> IF NOT TOO-LATE
> MOVE DS-DATE TO WS-DATE.
> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE AND Q1 = HQ1 AND Q2 = HQ2 AND NOT TOO-LAT
> - E
> MOVE 1 TO TOO-LATE-FLAG
> ADD 230 TO WS-DATE
> ELSE
> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE
> MOVE 1 TO INDICATE-X
> PERFORM 8200-CK-DONE THRU 8200-EXIT.
> 1150-EXIT. EXIT.
>
> :-)

That'd be about right!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
> On 7/23/22 6:23 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/19/22 10:50 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 22:34:40 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/19/22 3:48 PM, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 11:58:29 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/07/2022 18:48, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>> Amazing how many institutions STILL run COBOL apps writ
>>>>>>>>>> during the 60s by the guys with skinny ties. They work
>>>>>>>>>> very well, they're too expensive to re-do, so ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's probably a COBOL->C++ or JAVA translator out
>>>>>>>>>> there somewhere ... but money's so tight these days
>>>>>>>>>> and so many of those legacy apps are so super-critical
>>>>>>>>>> that they just can't/won't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe these are better than translators I have seen, but old ones produced
>>>>>>>>> unreadable code, and they might well miss some litte tricks that the old
>>>>>>>>> guys put in, and so leave time-bombs in the translated program. Much more
>>>>>>>>> expensive, but a lot better, is to extract the specs from the existing
>>>>>>>>> code, and there are re-engineering programs that can probably do a lot of
>>>>>>>>> that work, and then rewrite in the new language using programmers skilled
>>>>>>>>> in that language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TBH you cant do many tricks in COBOL and the whole thrust of the bloody
>>>>>>>> language is 'do it by the book, and write the book as documentation, as
>>>>>>>> well'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much would you like to bet? Yes, the language encourages
>>>>>>> straightforward programming, but I’ve seen things…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A long time ago, I worked on many COBOL applications, including a
>>>>>> client (PC) / server (MVS) communications application. I've seen
>>>>>> things that I cannot unsee, coded things that I cannot uncode.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Got any of it on a floppy or print-out anywhere ? I'd
>>>>> love to see how to do client/server only using COBOL.
>>>>
>>>> Both client and server used the same COBOL codebase, but with
>>>> different compilers and operating environments.
>>>>
>>>> The client was coded in Microfocus "Visual Object (VISOC)" COBOL
>>>> and ran on Windows NT 3 and Windows NT 4.1, using a TCP/IP to SNA
>>>> (terminal communications) connection.
>>>>
>>>> The server was coded in IBM COBOL and ran under IMS DC on an MVS
>>>> system, using an SNA terminal LU as it's communications endpoint.
>>>>
>>>> As this was an in-house "inner platform" project (3 tier client/server
>>>> architecture, circa 1990), I did not keep personal copies of any
>>>> of the code. Suffice it to say that my first question to the architect,
>>>> my first day on that project, was "Why COBOL?" The answer was "Because
>>>> that's what the coders know."
>>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes that IS a factor ... you have to have people who
>>> can write it. But 1990 ... IMHO it should have been 'C'.
>>>
>>
>> IMNSHO, COBOL. C is a terrible language for those types of language. Things
>> that are so dimple in COBOL, like moving a character string with blank
>> fill, or formatting numeric output, requires calling subroutines in C, and
>> lack of length checking on string moves is a recipe for disaster.
>>
>> I have used both languages quite a bit, perhaps COBOL more, years ago, but
>> neither is my preferred language, so I have no dog in this fight.
>
>
> Sorry, I like 'C' - and have writ little functions, MY way,
> to do a lot of the things you were talking about.
>
> Only ASM gives you more control - and I've done my share of
> that over the years too.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Mostly I like "terse" languages - less typing and lots
>>> of room left over for comments at the ends of the lines.
>>
>> Sounds like assembler ;-)
>
>
> YES ! :-)
>
> ASM ... MMmmmmmmm !
>
>
>> It’s too easy to write tricky code with side-effects in C. COBOL might not
>> be as self-documenting as advertised, but the operation of each statement
>> is pretty obvious and easily understood.
>
> So ... COBOL is for BAD PROGRAMMERS who can't foresee
> downstream consequences hmmm ??? ;-)
>

No, COBOL is for the NEXT poor bastard who has to look at your code and
try to figure out what the heck you were trying to do. The more “concise” a
language is, the more write-only it tends to be.

--
Pete

25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
> On 7/19/22 8:27 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-07-19, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> These days, of course, we’re awash in memory and it’s not worth doing
>>> a lot of work to save a few bytes; not like the old days.
>>
>> In _The Mythical Man-Month_, Fred Brooks describes the decision to save
>> 100 bytes by not having the date routine handle leap years.
>
> Well, it's only wrong 25% of the time ... :-)

Not really, because the operator had to set the date and time at each IPL,
and many shops IPLed often enough that it wasn’t a problem. We used to IPL
every night at the end of third shift.

--
Pete

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>>> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
>>
>> More like
>>
>> MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.
>>
>> or
>>
>> COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.
>>
>> De
>
> Or,
>
> 1150-CK-TIME.
> IF KLINGONS > 0
> ACCEPT WS-TIME FROM TIME
> MOVE WS-MIN OF WS-TIME TO DS-MIN
> PERFORM 1145-CK-FLAG THRU 1145-EXIT
> MOVE WS-SEC OF WS-TIME TO DS-SEC
> MOVE DS-TABLE TO S-DATE
> ELSE
> GO TO 1150-EXIT.
> COMPUTE T-STORE = DS-DATE - S-DATE.
> IF T-STORE < 90 AND NOT KLINGONS-ATTACKING
> MOVE 14 TO MAX-NO
> COMPUTE W = ((HQ2 - 1) * 14)
> COMPUTE Z = ((HQ1 - 1) * 14)
> INSPECT MASTER-TBL REPLACING ALL "K" BY " "
> MOVE 0 TO RX
> PERFORM 1170-MOVE-ON-HQ THRU 1170-EXIT
> VARYING KCTR FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL KCTR > KLINGONS
> MOVE 1 TO ATTACK-FLAG
> PERFORM 5900-TRANS THRU 5900-EXIT
> IF (Q1 NOT = HQ1 OR Q2 NOT = HQ2)
> DISPLAY "WARNING - STAR DATE: " S-DATE
> DISPLAY "SCIENCE OFFICER SPOCK ADVISES"
> DISPLAY "YOU NAVIGATE TO QUADRANT " HQ1 "," HQ2
> DISPLAY "TO DEFEND STAR FLEET HEADQUARTERS".
> IF NOT TOO-LATE
> MOVE DS-DATE TO WS-DATE.
> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE AND Q1 = HQ1 AND Q2 = HQ2 AND NOT TOO-LAT
> - E
> MOVE 1 TO TOO-LATE-FLAG
> ADD 230 TO WS-DATE
> ELSE
> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE
> MOVE 1 TO INDICATE-X
> PERFORM 8200-CK-DONE THRU 8200-EXIT.
> 1150-EXIT. EXIT.
>
> :-)
>

If I had a programmer working for me who coded like that,be having a talk.
I HAVE seen code like that, usually written by someone who thought
programming was beneath him and was bored. Such people were usually
promoted to management, where they fit right in.

--
Pete

Jack Strangio <jackstrangio@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>
>> Heh heh .... yea, we all get sick of writing out
>> long "descriptive names" and "self documenting"
>> code. Something about it just grates on the soul,
>> impedes the creative impulse.
>>
> I was probably a bit different from most people in that I went from BASIC to
> COBOL within a very short period of time back in the 1980s.
>
> I still have some source files from that time.I have no idea what the BASIC
> programs were doing and, more the point, *how* they did it. When you get lines
> like:
>
> 740 !#H9 TAB(10),C$," ",E$,A$,TAB(22),D$,A$,E$
> 745 K7$=" "+D$+"M"+A$+E$\ WRITE#5,K7$\!">>>",K7$,"<"
> 750 GOTO460
> 760 READ#1%L,&X
> 770 M5=(X+O+1)
> 780 A=A7(M5)\B=B7(M5)
> 790 A$=A7$(2*M5-1,2*M5)
> 800 B$=B7$(10*M5-9,10*M5)
> 810 B$=B$(1,(B8(M5)))
> 820 RETURN
>
> and then find COBOL lines like this:
>
> 0352 NEW-ORDER.
> 0353 DISPLAY SCREEN-CLEAR LINE-FEEDS LINE-FEEDS.
> 0354 PERFORM TYPE-CUST.
> 0355
> 0356 MOVE " * ORDER FROM " TO PAPER-TYPE.
> 0357 MOVE CUST-NAME TO ORGANISATION-D.
> 0358 MOVE CUST-CODE TO WHO.
> 0359 MOVE MONTH-S TO WHEN-MONTH.
> 0360 MOVE YEAR-S TO WHEN-YEAR.
> 0361 OPEN OUTPUT ORDER-FILE.
> 0362 MOVE HEADER-TYPE TO HEADER-TYPE-D.
> 0363 MOVE " * O/No " TO FORM-TYPE.
> 0364 PERFORM NEW-ORD-1.
>
>
> it's easy to know which language's source-code I prefer to read after not
> seeing them for years.
>
>
> Jack
>
>

+1

--
Pete

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>>>> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
>>>
>>> More like
>>>
>>> MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.
>>>
>>> De
>>
>> Or,
>>
>> 1150-CK-TIME.
>> IF KLINGONS > 0
>> ACCEPT WS-TIME FROM TIME
>> MOVE WS-MIN OF WS-TIME TO DS-MIN
>> PERFORM 1145-CK-FLAG THRU 1145-EXIT
>> MOVE WS-SEC OF WS-TIME TO DS-SEC
>> MOVE DS-TABLE TO S-DATE
>> ELSE
>> GO TO 1150-EXIT.
>> COMPUTE T-STORE = DS-DATE - S-DATE.
>> IF T-STORE < 90 AND NOT KLINGONS-ATTACKING
>> MOVE 14 TO MAX-NO
>> COMPUTE W = ((HQ2 - 1) * 14)
>> COMPUTE Z = ((HQ1 - 1) * 14)
>> INSPECT MASTER-TBL REPLACING ALL "K" BY " "
>> MOVE 0 TO RX
>> PERFORM 1170-MOVE-ON-HQ THRU 1170-EXIT
>> VARYING KCTR FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL KCTR > KLINGONS
>> MOVE 1 TO ATTACK-FLAG
>> PERFORM 5900-TRANS THRU 5900-EXIT
>> IF (Q1 NOT = HQ1 OR Q2 NOT = HQ2)
>> DISPLAY "WARNING - STAR DATE: " S-DATE
>> DISPLAY "SCIENCE OFFICER SPOCK ADVISES"
>> DISPLAY "YOU NAVIGATE TO QUADRANT " HQ1 "," HQ2
>> DISPLAY "TO DEFEND STAR FLEET HEADQUARTERS".
>> IF NOT TOO-LATE
>> MOVE DS-DATE TO WS-DATE.
>> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE AND Q1 = HQ1 AND Q2 = HQ2 AND NOT TOO-LAT
>> - E
>> MOVE 1 TO TOO-LATE-FLAG
>> ADD 230 TO WS-DATE
>> ELSE
>> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE
>> MOVE 1 TO INDICATE-X
>> PERFORM 8200-CK-DONE THRU 8200-EXIT.
>> 1150-EXIT. EXIT.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
>If I had a programmer working for me who coded like that,be having a talk.
>I HAVE seen code like that, usually written by someone who thought
>programming was beneath him and was bored. Such people were usually
>promoted to management, where they fit right in.
>

Speak to Kurt.

IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. STREK.
AUTHOR. KURT WILHELM.
INSTALLATION. OAKLAND UNIVERSITY.
DATE-WRITTEN. COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 1, 1979.
*
*******************************************************
* STAR_TREK SIMULATES AN OUTER SPACE ADVENTURE GAME *
* ON A REMOTE TERMINAL. THE USER COMMANDS THE U.S.S. *
* ENTERPRISE, AND THRU VARIOUS OFFENSIVE AND DEFEN- *
* SIVE COMMANDS, TRAVELS THROUGHOUT THE GALAXY ON A *
* MISSION TO DESTROY ALL KLINGONS, WHICH ALSO MANEU- *
* VER AND FIRE ON THE ENTERPRISE. *
*******************************************************

On 2022-07-25, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/22 8:27 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-07-19, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> These days, of course, we’re awash in memory and it’s not worth doing
>>>> a lot of work to save a few bytes; not like the old days.
>>>
>>> In _The Mythical Man-Month_, Fred Brooks describes the decision to save
>>> 100 bytes by not having the date routine handle leap years.
>>
>> Well, it's only wrong 25% of the time ... :-)
>
> Not really, because the operator had to set the date and time at each IPL,
> and many shops IPLed often enough that it wasn’t a problem. We used to IPL
> every night at the end of third shift.

Ah yes, the good old days before computers had battery-backed time-of-day
clocks (or anything to set them from). One of the trade rags ran an ad
that showed a teaspoonful of ICs, accompanied by the statement: "Soon
you'll have an IBM 3090 in your wristwatch!" Someone quipped: "Yeah,
you'll boot MVS on it and the first thing it'll do is ask you the time."

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-07-25, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/23/22 6:23 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> It’s too easy to write tricky code with side-effects in C. COBOL might not
>>> be as self-documenting as advertised, but the operation of each statement
>>> is pretty obvious and easily understood.
>>
>> So ... COBOL is for BAD PROGRAMMERS who can't foresee
>> downstream consequences hmmm ??? ;-)
>
> No, COBOL is for the NEXT poor bastard who has to look at your code and
> try to figure out what the heck you were trying to do. The more “concise” a
> language is, the more write-only it tends to be.

I've cleaned up some pretty horrid COBOL code. Overly-verbose and
convoluted code can be just as bad as something overly concise.

A sufficiently determined programmer can write unreadable code
in any language. Convoluted code with no comments is even worse.
Convoluted code with outdated, incorrect comments is worse still.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>>>> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
>>>
>>> More like
>>>
>>> MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.
>>>
>>> De
>>
>> Or,
>>
>> 1150-CK-TIME.
>> IF KLINGONS > 0
>> ACCEPT WS-TIME FROM TIME
>> MOVE WS-MIN OF WS-TIME TO DS-MIN
>> PERFORM 1145-CK-FLAG THRU 1145-EXIT
>> MOVE WS-SEC OF WS-TIME TO DS-SEC
>> MOVE DS-TABLE TO S-DATE
>> ELSE
>> GO TO 1150-EXIT.
>> COMPUTE T-STORE = DS-DATE - S-DATE.
>> IF T-STORE < 90 AND NOT KLINGONS-ATTACKING
>> MOVE 14 TO MAX-NO
>> COMPUTE W = ((HQ2 - 1) * 14)
>> COMPUTE Z = ((HQ1 - 1) * 14)
>> INSPECT MASTER-TBL REPLACING ALL "K" BY " "
>> MOVE 0 TO RX
>> PERFORM 1170-MOVE-ON-HQ THRU 1170-EXIT
>> VARYING KCTR FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL KCTR > KLINGONS
>> MOVE 1 TO ATTACK-FLAG
>> PERFORM 5900-TRANS THRU 5900-EXIT
>> IF (Q1 NOT = HQ1 OR Q2 NOT = HQ2)
>> DISPLAY "WARNING - STAR DATE: " S-DATE
>> DISPLAY "SCIENCE OFFICER SPOCK ADVISES"
>> DISPLAY "YOU NAVIGATE TO QUADRANT " HQ1 "," HQ2
>> DISPLAY "TO DEFEND STAR FLEET HEADQUARTERS".
>> IF NOT TOO-LATE
>> MOVE DS-DATE TO WS-DATE.
>> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE AND Q1 = HQ1 AND Q2 = HQ2 AND NOT TOO-LAT
>> - E
>> MOVE 1 TO TOO-LATE-FLAG
>> ADD 230 TO WS-DATE
>> ELSE
>> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE
>> MOVE 1 TO INDICATE-X
>> PERFORM 8200-CK-DONE THRU 8200-EXIT.
>> 1150-EXIT. EXIT.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> If I had a programmer working for me who coded like that,be having a talk.
> I HAVE seen code like that, usually written by someone who thought
> programming was beneath him and was bored. Such people were usually
> promoted to management, where they fit right in.

Being a game, I'm not surprised. Business code would not look like that.

--
Dan Espen

Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:

> On 2022-07-24 00:23, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:
>>> Sometimes that IS a factor ... you have to have people who
>>> can write it. But 1990 ... IMHO it should have been 'C'.
>>>
>>
>> IMNSHO, COBOL. C is a terrible language for those types of
> language. Things
>> that are so dimple in COBOL, like moving a character string with blank
>> fill, or formatting numeric output, requires calling subroutines in
> C, and
>> lack of length checking on string moves is a recipe for disaster.
> This is one of the weirder arguments I've ever seen:
> "requires calling a subroutine in C". As if that somehow is a problem?
> Not to mention it's a function, and not a subroutine. Any claim of
> "used the language quite a bit" sounds hollow after that.
>
> A statement to move a character string in COBOL will in the end be a
> subroutine call as well.

And why do you think that?

I've sure seen lots of COBOL MOVE instructions generate a single
hardware instruction.

--
Dan Espen

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>>>>> SET 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR
>>>>
>>>> More like
>>>>
>>>> MULTIPLY IFILE-ACCTBAL BY MIR GIVING 0800-INTADJ.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> COMPUTE 0800-INTADJ = IFILE-ACCTBAL * MIR.
>>>>
>>>> De
>>>
>>> Or,
>>>
>>> 1150-CK-TIME.
>>> IF KLINGONS > 0
>>> ACCEPT WS-TIME FROM TIME
>>> MOVE WS-MIN OF WS-TIME TO DS-MIN
>>> PERFORM 1145-CK-FLAG THRU 1145-EXIT
>>> MOVE WS-SEC OF WS-TIME TO DS-SEC
>>> MOVE DS-TABLE TO S-DATE
>>> ELSE
>>> GO TO 1150-EXIT.
>>> COMPUTE T-STORE = DS-DATE - S-DATE.
>>> IF T-STORE < 90 AND NOT KLINGONS-ATTACKING
>>> MOVE 14 TO MAX-NO
>>> COMPUTE W = ((HQ2 - 1) * 14)
>>> COMPUTE Z = ((HQ1 - 1) * 14)
>>> INSPECT MASTER-TBL REPLACING ALL "K" BY " "
>>> MOVE 0 TO RX
>>> PERFORM 1170-MOVE-ON-HQ THRU 1170-EXIT
>>> VARYING KCTR FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL KCTR > KLINGONS
>>> MOVE 1 TO ATTACK-FLAG
>>> PERFORM 5900-TRANS THRU 5900-EXIT
>>> IF (Q1 NOT = HQ1 OR Q2 NOT = HQ2)
>>> DISPLAY "WARNING - STAR DATE: " S-DATE
>>> DISPLAY "SCIENCE OFFICER SPOCK ADVISES"
>>> DISPLAY "YOU NAVIGATE TO QUADRANT " HQ1 "," HQ2
>>> DISPLAY "TO DEFEND STAR FLEET HEADQUARTERS".
>>> IF NOT TOO-LATE
>>> MOVE DS-DATE TO WS-DATE.
>>> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE AND Q1 = HQ1 AND Q2 = HQ2 AND NOT TOO-LAT
>>> - E
>>> MOVE 1 TO TOO-LATE-FLAG
>>> ADD 230 TO WS-DATE
>>> ELSE
>>> IF S-DATE > WS-DATE
>>> MOVE 1 TO INDICATE-X
>>> PERFORM 8200-CK-DONE THRU 8200-EXIT.
>>> 1150-EXIT. EXIT.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> If I had a programmer working for me who coded like that,be having a talk.
>> I HAVE seen code like that, usually written by someone who thought
>> programming was beneath him and was bored. Such people were usually
>> promoted to management, where they fit right in.
>>
>
> Speak to Kurt.
>
> IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
> PROGRAM-ID. STREK.
> AUTHOR. KURT WILHELM.
> INSTALLATION. OAKLAND UNIVERSITY.
> DATE-WRITTEN. COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 1, 1979.
> *
> *******************************************************
> * STAR_TREK SIMULATES AN OUTER SPACE ADVENTURE GAME *
> * ON A REMOTE TERMINAL. THE USER COMMANDS THE U.S.S. *
> * ENTERPRISE, AND THRU VARIOUS OFFENSIVE AND DEFEN- *
> * SIVE COMMANDS, TRAVELS THROUGHOUT THE GALAXY ON A *
> * MISSION TO DESTROY ALL KLINGONS, WHICH ALSO MANEU- *
> * VER AND FIRE ON THE ENTERPRISE. *
> *******************************************************
>
>

Well, in that case naming a variable klingons makes perfect sense. Maybe
not in a payroll program.

--
Pete