Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91099 > unrolled thread

OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-04 02:20 +0000
    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-04 03:17 +0000
      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-04 12:56 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 14:44 +0100
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-04 18:48 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-04 16:00 +0000
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:19 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 00:59 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 01:26 +0000
              Intel and IEEE 754 (was: Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 03:06 +0100
                Re: Intel and IEEE 754 (was: Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 02:27 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-05 03:25 -0400
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 17:56 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-05 21:30 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-05 22:38 +0000
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 01:59 +0000
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-06 03:08 +0000
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-06 03:51 +0000
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 06:43 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-06 02:43 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-04 18:37 +0000
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-04 21:20 -0400
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 01:40 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 03:46 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-05 03:36 -0400
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 18:09 +0000
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 19:23 +0100
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-06 02:49 +0000
                      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-06 03:51 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-04 22:36 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 06:50 +0000
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-07 04:14 -0400
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 12:05 +0100
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-07 09:17 -0400
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 15:02 +0100
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-07 19:16 +0000
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 22:26 +0100
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-08 04:18 +0000
                      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-08 04:38 +0000
                      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-08 05:43 +0000
                        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-09 04:25 +0000
                          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-09 09:35 +0100
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-07 18:58 -0400
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-08 04:47 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-14 17:18 +0000
    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 02:50 +0100
      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 08:37 +0100
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 10:20 +0100
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 18:31 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#91105

On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-09-04, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> wrote:
> 
>> Does computer science need computers?  This is just abominable click
>> bait.
>>
>> What we now practice as "computer science" is totally grounded in
>> computers,
>> be they digital, ternary, or something else.
> 
> I dropped out of computer science because it was too theoretical.
> At the time, computer science was a subsidiary of the math department; 
it
> didn't become a department in its own right until after I was gone.

In the '60s RPI didn't have a CS program. That wasn't unusual. I think 
Dartmouth may have been the first. RIT also had one of the early programs. 
FORTRAN was viewed as a tool to be used by engineers and scientists in 
their careers. It was taught by the math department. I think that was 
because they didn't know what else to do with it.

https://news.mit.edu/2026/how-mit-research-project-became-global-
programming-language-0831

I don't know anything about Julia but I found the idea of a language 
designed for users in other fields interesting, sort of going back to 
FORTRAN as a tool. 

I once worked with a chemist who used FORTRAN. It wasn't elegant code but 
it got the job done. I'm certainly not a PhD chemist but I could see what 
he was doing and adapt his code for production, hopefully with a better 
structure. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91110

On 9/4/26 14:37, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-09-04, Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Does computer science need computers?  This is just abominable click
>>> bait.
>>>
>>> What we now practice as "computer science" is totally grounded in
>>> computers,
>>> be they digital, ternary, or something else.
>>
>> I dropped out of computer science because it was too theoretical.
>> At the time, computer science was a subsidiary of the math department;
> it
>> didn't become a department in its own right until after I was gone.
> 
> In the '60s RPI didn't have a CS program. That wasn't unusual. I think
> Dartmouth may have been the first. RIT also had one of the early programs.
> FORTRAN was viewed as a tool to be used by engineers and scientists in
> their careers. It was taught by the math department. I think that was
> because they didn't know what else to do with it.
> 
> https://news.mit.edu/2026/how-mit-research-project-became-global-
> programming-language-0831
> 
> I don't know anything about Julia but I found the idea of a language
> designed for users in other fields interesting, sort of going back to
> FORTRAN as a tool.
> 
> I once worked with a chemist who used FORTRAN. It wasn't elegant code but
> it got the job done. I'm certainly not a PhD chemist but I could see what
> he was doing and adapt his code for production, hopefully with a better
> structure.

   FORTRAN is a pretty good language. I still do little
   utilities in it every so often. Not as set up for 'net'
   as some of the newer stuff but you might still get by
   with functions like "http-client".

   A lot of things in Python - the list-handling stuff
   most usefully - were borrowed from FORTRAN.

   Before I retired, there were a few people in the org
   into statistics - and oft came across useful FORTRAN
   functions that were writ for other/older versions.
   Part of my job was to convert them to the more modern
   compilers.

   So, to me, FORTRAN isn't so "ancient".

   Also remember some COBOL ... but I'm not going
   back there  :-)

   The idea of computer langs for non/barely-computer
   people has some attraction. However I think that
   "AI" is going to be the popular work-around now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91112

On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 21:20:32 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> 
>    So, to me, FORTRAN isn't so "ancient".
> 

There are HUGE software repositories that contain programs
mostly written in FORTRAN.

One example:

<https://www.netlib.org/>  

This is why the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) maintains an
up-to-date Fortran compiler.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91116

On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 21:20:32 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Before I retired, there were a few people in the org into statistics
>    - and oft came across useful FORTRAN functions that were writ for
>    other/older versions. Part of my job was to convert them to the more
>    modern compilers.

NOAA has some legacy FORTRAN code to handle State Plane Coordinate System 
to NAD83 coordinates and vice versa.

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/spc.shtml

Other than changing g77 to f77 in the makefile the code compiles and runs. 
I wanted something that could be used in C so I pulled out what I needed 
and redid it in C. I don't know why it is f77 on Ubuntu. Ultimately it 
symlinks to gfortran. The code goes back to '87. There were a couple of 
updates in '02' and '11 to deal with Guaam. I never had to deal with Guam. 
Good thing since the coords of its largest city are 
13.509492, 144.836528. It and a couple of islands in the Aleutians are the 
only part of the US in the eastern hemisphere. I'm surprised NOAA bothered 
since the code for the most part assumes a positive longitude when it 
really should be negative in the western hemisphere. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2c

I had tried that. The output isn't very pretty although it might work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91118

On 9/4/26 23:46, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 21:20:32 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Before I retired, there were a few people in the org into statistics
>>     - and oft came across useful FORTRAN functions that were writ for
>>     other/older versions. Part of my job was to convert them to the more
>>     modern compilers.
> 
> NOAA has some legacy FORTRAN code to handle State Plane Coordinate System
> to NAD83 coordinates and vice versa.
> 
> https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/spc.shtml
> 
> Other than changing g77 to f77 in the makefile the code compiles and runs.
> I wanted something that could be used in C so I pulled out what I needed
> and redid it in C. I don't know why it is f77 on Ubuntu. Ultimately it
> symlinks to gfortran. The code goes back to '87. There were a couple of
> updates in '02' and '11 to deal with Guaam. I never had to deal with Guam.
> Good thing since the coords of its largest city are
> 13.509492, 144.836528. It and a couple of islands in the Aleutians are the
> only part of the US in the eastern hemisphere. I'm surprised NOAA bothered
> since the code for the most part assumes a positive longitude when it
> really should be negative in the western hemisphere.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2c
> 
> I had tried that. The output isn't very pretty although it might work.

   I'd prefer a certain "prettiness" if at all possible.
   Makes it all more 'transparent' and oft "portable".

   Anyway, 'upgraded' old FORTRAN routines for a long time.
   Re-wrote them IN FORTRAN though, not 'C' or whatever.
   Re-do FORTRAN in FORTRAN and everything is smooth, no
   'alien' modules to import.

   Anyway, it's NOT a "dead language" at all. It has
   a purpose, a context, and many many USERS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91126

On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 03:36:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>   Anyway, 'upgraded' old FORTRAN routines for a long time.
>    Re-wrote them IN FORTRAN though, not 'C' or whatever.
>    Re-do FORTRAN in FORTRAN and everything is smooth, no 'alien' modules
>    to import.

When almost all of the code base is C, FORTRAN would be a problem for 
future maintenance. I am familiar with FORTRAN. Most younger programmers 
aren't.

There was precedent. The company had its own geodatabase and code based on 
DbVista. Way back when the interface was FORTRAN but it had been converted 
to C. That was before my time and I don't know the history or when Motif 
was selected for the GUI toolkit. 

https://cyber.dabamos.de/programming/modernfortran/motif.html

Shudder...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91128

On 05/09/2026 19:09, rbowman wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 03:36:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    Anyway, 'upgraded' old FORTRAN routines for a long time.
>>     Re-wrote them IN FORTRAN though, not 'C' or whatever.
>>     Re-do FORTRAN in FORTRAN and everything is smooth, no 'alien' modules
>>     to import.
> 
> When almost all of the code base is C, FORTRAN would be a problem for
> future maintenance. I am familiar with FORTRAN. Most younger programmers
> aren't.
> 
It isn't exactly hard to learn...


-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91138

On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 19:23:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 05/09/2026 19:09, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 03:36:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>    Anyway, 'upgraded' old FORTRAN routines for a long time.
>>>     Re-wrote them IN FORTRAN though, not 'C' or whatever.
>>>     Re-do FORTRAN in FORTRAN and everything is smooth, no 'alien'
>>>     modules to import.
>> 
>> When almost all of the code base is C, FORTRAN would be a problem for
>> future maintenance. I am familiar with FORTRAN. Most younger
>> programmers aren't.
>> 
> It isn't exactly hard to learn...

At this point I would have to relearn it :)  I learned FORTRAN IV in '66 
or maybe '67. The compiler was released for the System/360 in '66. 
McCracken's 'a guide to FORTRAN IV programming' was published in '65, so 
somewhere around then. I'm fairly comfortable with Fortran 77 although 
there are features I might not use. Fortran 2003 and above is a different 
animal.

I have no intention of getting up to speed with Modern Fortran. It does 
what it does extremely well but afaik it's limited outside of it's domain. 
Maybe packages like NumPy use Fortran under the hood but unlike cars I 
prefer not to open the hood (bonnet).

https://numpy.org/doc/stable/f2py/

Interesting disclaimer about Modern Fortran. Please file bugs when you try 
to use it and it breaks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91140

On 2026-09-06, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 19:23:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2026 19:09, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 03:36:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>> 
>>>>    Anyway, 'upgraded' old FORTRAN routines for a long time.
>>>>     Re-wrote them IN FORTRAN though, not 'C' or whatever.
>>>>     Re-do FORTRAN in FORTRAN and everything is smooth, no 'alien'
>>>>     modules to import.
>>> 
>>> When almost all of the code base is C, FORTRAN would be a problem for
>>> future maintenance. I am familiar with FORTRAN. Most younger
>>> programmers aren't.
>>> 
>> It isn't exactly hard to learn...
>
> At this point I would have to relearn it :)  I learned FORTRAN IV in '66 
> or maybe '67. The compiler was released for the System/360 in '66. 
> McCracken's 'a guide to FORTRAN IV programming' was published in '65, so 
> somewhere around then. I'm fairly comfortable with Fortran 77 although 
> there are features I might not use. Fortran 2003 and above is a different 
> animal.

I still have my copy of McCracken.  However, once out of school
I had no further need of Fortran - unless you count my porting
of Adventure and Dungeon to the Univac 90/30 in the early '80s.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91107

On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> Most CS dweebs spent their time sitting in an ivory tower
> contemplating the whichness of what; mention COBOL (or any
> real-world application, for that matter) and their faces would turn
> green.
>
> I left to find a programming job in the Real World [tm] instead.

Thankfully, COBOL isn’t a significant factor in the Real World™ any
more. Companies that were running mission-critical systems on that
have mostly selected themselves out of the gene pool by now, one way
or another.

(Yes, I did write COBOL code for a living, at one point. So I know
whereof what I speak.)

(And I have a CS degree as well.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91143

On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> ... mention COBOL ... and their faces would turn green.

Another of the ironies of COBOL was that it was supposedly focused
very strictly on “business” needs. So you had very limited
string-processing capabilities or any dynamic storage allocation,
because supposedly “business” applications didn’t require that.
Instead, the language put a lot of effort into dealing with all kinds
of complexities involving ISAM files.

Then relational databases became popular among “business” users. And
the best way to interface to them involved dynamically generating SQL
query strings. Which COBOL wasn’t very good at -- and still isn’t, as
far as I can tell. Various vendor-proprietary extensions dealt with
this by letting a program embed statically-defined query templates,
but that sacrificed portability. And it still didn’t deal very well
with more ad-hoc database access -- which “business” users found was a
very useful thing to do.

And nowadays, who has even heard of ISAM files? Can you even find them
in “business” environments any more?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91155

On 9/6/26 02:50, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> ... mention COBOL ... and their faces would turn green.
> 
> Another of the ironies of COBOL was that it was supposedly focused
> very strictly on “business” needs. So you had very limited
> string-processing capabilities or any dynamic storage allocation,
> because supposedly “business” applications didn’t require that.
> Instead, the language put a lot of effort into dealing with all kinds
> of complexities involving ISAM files.
> 
> Then relational databases became popular among “business” users. And
> the best way to interface to them involved dynamically generating SQL
> query strings. Which COBOL wasn’t very good at -- and still isn’t, as
> far as I can tell. Various vendor-proprietary extensions dealt with
> this by letting a program embed statically-defined query templates,
> but that sacrificed portability. And it still didn’t deal very well
> with more ad-hoc database access -- which “business” users found was a
> very useful thing to do.
> 
> And nowadays, who has even heard of ISAM files? Can you even find them
> in “business” environments any more?

   COBOL *would* get it done - by SOME means.

   However it wasn't always very EASY or LOGICAL means.

   The original goal of an "English-ish" lang that would
   self-document - BIG FAIL.

   It's a major pain to program. Torture actually.

   I had done, on RARE occasion "just for fun" STILL
   do, a little COBOL, but it's never ever gonna be
   my lang of choice. FORTRAN is *much* better if
   doing Old-School Solutions. I have a number of
   utils I wrote in FORTRAN - but NONE anymore in
   COBOL.

   DID find a semi-smart IDE for COBOL though, writ in
   Python apparently, not COBOL.

   I got into computing right around when that neat-o
   new 'C' language could be had - PDP-11. That kinda
   set my tastes/perspective. Also love Pascal however,
   just a certain 'elegance'. All hail Lazarus/FPC !

   Now, if you ARE good at COBOL you CAN make a fuckin'
   LOT of money these days. "Core" govt/industry/bank
   programs were writ in COBOL during the 60s by those
   excellent narrow-tie "Dilberts". These days nobody
   can AFFORD to replace them, DARE to replace. So ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91160

On 07/09/2026 09:14, c186282 wrote:
> On 9/6/26 02:50, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> ... mention COBOL ... and their faces would turn green.
>>
>> Another of the ironies of COBOL was that it was supposedly focused
>> very strictly on “business” needs. So you had very limited
>> string-processing capabilities or any dynamic storage allocation,
>> because supposedly “business” applications didn’t require that.
>> Instead, the language put a lot of effort into dealing with all kinds
>> of complexities involving ISAM files.
>>
Another clueless dimwit who has no idea of the environment in which the 
language was developed.


>> Then relational databases became popular among “business” users. And
>> the best way to interface to them involved dynamically generating SQL
>> query strings. Which COBOL wasn’t very good at -- and still isn’t, as
>> far as I can tell. Various vendor-proprietary extensions dealt with
>> this by letting a program embed statically-defined query templates,
>> but that sacrificed portability. And it still didn’t deal very well
>> with more ad-hoc database access -- which “business” users found was a
>> very useful thing to do.
>>
>> And nowadays, who has even heard of ISAM files? Can you even find them
>> in “business” environments any more?
> 
More cluelessness

>    COBOL *would* get it done - by SOME means.
> 
>    However it wasn't always very EASY or LOGICAL means.
> 
>    The original goal of an "English-ish" lang that would
>    self-document - BIG FAIL.
> 
More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and 
wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.

The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.


>    It's a major pain to program. Torture actually.
> 
Its a piece of cake.

>    I had done, on RARE occasion "just for fun" STILL
>    do, a little COBOL, but it's never ever gonna be
>    my lang of choice. FORTRAN is *much* better if
>    doing Old-School Solutions. I have a number of
>    utils I wrote in FORTRAN - but NONE anymore in
>    COBOL.
> 
>    DID find a semi-smart IDE for COBOL though, writ in
>    Python apparently, not COBOL.
> 
>    I got into computing right around when that neat-o
>    new 'C' language could be had - PDP-11. That kinda
>    set my tastes/perspective. Also love Pascal however,
>    just a certain 'elegance'. All hail Lazarus/FPC !
> 
So basically an amateur

>    Now, if you ARE good at COBOL you CAN make a fuckin'
>    LOT of money these days. "Core" govt/industry/bank
>    programs were writ in COBOL during the 60s by those
>    excellent narrow-tie "Dilberts". These days nobody
>    can AFFORD to replace them, DARE to replace. So ...
> 

-- 
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have 
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91161

The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):

> <snip>
>> 
> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and 
> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
>
> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.

That's no fun!

-- 
His designs were strictly honourable, as the phrase is: that is, to rob
a lady of her fortune by way of marriage.
		-- Henry Fielding, "Tom Jones"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91162

On 07/09/2026 14:17, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
> 
>> <snip>
>>>
>> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
>> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and
>> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
>>
>> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.
> 
> That's no fun!
> 
No. It was a well paid job though.

Remember COBOL dates back to programs stored on punch cards, line 
printers, 8k RAM and data storage on multiple tapes.
You don't allocate RAM. You declare ALL your variables up front. 
Globals. You run the module. You update the data on the tape drives, and 
then you start again with the next part of the batch.


And probably a single tasking operating system running payroll in batches
-- 
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91163

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:17:02 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
> 
>> <snip>
>>> 
>> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
>> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and
>> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
>>
>> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.
> 
> That's no fun!

At that point 'programmer' was an entry level position slightly better 
than keypunch operator. You slowly ascended the hill to programmer analyst 
and system analyst. 

Top-down structured programming was the mantra. After months of meetings, 
flow charts, pseudocode, and so worth the system was designed and then it 
was coded. Of course during those months there were pissing contests as 
those involved tried to carve out their fiefdoms. If, during the coding 
phase, the design was discovered to have massive problems, well tough 
shit.  The glorious design isn't going to be modified for mere reality.

I think the DoD still works on that principle. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91168

On 07/09/2026 20:16, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:17:02 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
>>> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and
>>> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
>>>
>>> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.
>>
>> That's no fun!
> 
> At that point 'programmer' was an entry level position slightly better
> than keypunch operator. You slowly ascended the hill to programmer analyst
> and system analyst.
> 
Anal cysts and anal progs they were called...

> Top-down structured programming was the mantra. After months of meetings,
> flow charts, pseudocode, and so worth the system was designed and then it
> was coded. 

Spot on. Coding was slow. You didnt want to redo it

> Of course during those months there were pissing contests as
> those involved tried to carve out their fiefdoms. If, during the coding
> phase, the design was discovered to have massive problems, well tough
> shit.  The glorious design isn't going to be modified for mere reality.
> 
Not quite.

> I think the DoD still works on that principle.
> 
IBM almost certainly does, and probably Oracle

-- 
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They 
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91172

On 2026-09-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/09/2026 20:16, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:17:02 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> 
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
>>>> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and
>>>> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
>>>>
>>>> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.
>>>
>>> That's no fun!
>> 
>> At that point 'programmer' was an entry level position slightly better
>> than keypunch operator. You slowly ascended the hill to programmer analyst
>> and system analyst.
> 
> Anal cysts and anal progs they were called...

At a PPOE our payroll system had a 15-character field for job description.
My title of "programmer-analyst" was therefore curtated[1] to
PROGRAMMER-ANAL.  I always thought it was appropriate.

>> Top-down structured programming was the mantra. After months of meetings,
>> flow charts, pseudocode, and so worth the system was designed and then it
>> was coded. 

I was lucky enough to work in small shops.  I got the specs,
then designed and wrote the programs myself - all the while
thumbing my nose at the Structured Programming revolution,
which I saw as the culmination of bureaucracy's attempts
to infiltrate every aspect of our lives.

[1] curtate is a form of truncation where phrases are
arbitrarily chopped off.  The detailed definition appears
in Stan Kelly-Bootle's book "The Devil's DP Dictionary".

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91173

On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 04:18:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I was lucky enough to work in small shops.  I got the specs,
> then designed and wrote the programs myself - all the while thumbing my
> nose at the Structured Programming revolution,
> which I saw as the culmination of bureaucracy's attempts to infiltrate
> every aspect of our lives.

I prefer the yo-yo methodology. Form a loose top level idea of where the 
project is going, code the chunks you think may be a problem, go back to 
see how they hang together, rinse and repeat.

Then there is the realization that has been given several names like agile 
and so forth. The client doesn't know what he wants until he sees it so 
demo a stubbed out version as soon as possible. Adjust the plan 
accordingly.

Be aware that as soon as the client sees something with the basic 
functionality he wants he'll think the project is done. It isn't.

Plus points if you can do the above without indicating with verbal or body 
language that you think you're dealing with someone who should be flipping 
burgers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91176

On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 04:18:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I was lucky enough to work in small shops. I got the specs, then
> designed and wrote the programs myself - all the while thumbing my
> nose at the Structured Programming revolution, which I saw as the
> culmination of bureaucracy's attempts to infiltrate every aspect of
> our lives.

In the real world, requirements change all the time. If you waited
until the specs were completely nailed down before writing the first
line of code, you would never get any code written.

I think Fred Brooks mentioned how useful it was to both customer and
programmer to get their hands on actual working code as early as
possible in the process, even if it was only a partial implementation
and possibly even completely wrong in places, because it was so
wonderfully effective in focusing the attention of both parties on
what actually needed to be done. I’m not sure it occurred to him to
take the next logical step, and build an entire development
methodology around that basic fact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web