@11:15 I call BS on the claim that no local variables means that your variables are easy to locate. Most of the COBOL code I've seen has thousands of lines of variables in WORKING-STORAGE. So many variables are stuffed there that special naming conventions are required to avoid conflict, so the variables are also super long. It's not a feature that you have to code WS-MYTASK-MYFUNCTION-LOOP-COUNTER-I for a loop counter (that you could just call i in a sane language with local variables), and put that declaration thousands of lines away, buried among thousands of other variables.
The COBOL teachers are always the best!
@36:10 -- I hadn't seen any code using the "new" *> comment style. This is nice to know.
@11:15 I call BS on the claim that no local variables means that your variables are easy to locate. Most of the COBOL code I've seen has thousands of lines of variables in WORKING-STORAGE. So many variables are stuffed there that special naming conventions are required to avoid conflict, so the variables are also super long. It's not a feature that you have to code WS-MYTASK-MYFUNCTION-LOOP-COUNTER-I for a loop counter (that you could just call i in a sane language with local variables), and put that declaration thousands of lines away, buried among thousands of other variables.
Boa Tarde, onde encontro oportunidades em COBOL