Jump to content

Talk:COBOL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCOBOL was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
February 2, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
February 10, 2015Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 8, 2019.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: No improvement Real4jyy (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a bloated lede (as well as other sections), an orange tag outlining missing information from 2021, and many uncited statements. I posted my concerns on the article talk page, but there was no response. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COBOL syntax designed for "management" to read

[edit]

Is there any evidence of this in COBOL's design record? The 1960 report says "The COBOL System allows the user to prepare his specifications for the problem solution in the language most natural to him - namely English," and "[The procedure division] allows the user to express his thoughts in meaningful English.… That is, any user of COBOL can understand the information appearing in this division without regard to any particular computer." There is no clear reference to management here, but rather to high-level programmers essentially as they exist today. It's misleading to call such people "management" only because they oversaw human compilers before they had automatic ones. When I worked as an electrical engineer, the fact that I handed off soldering work to technicians did not make me their manager. 2601:642:4F84:1590:2438:9E10:1872:2571 (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph 3 & 4

[edit]

These paragraphs are less interpretable by layman if anyone wants to move them and tidy up the lede paragraphs. Since this is a GA complaint, I may even come back and do it myself after reading the article.FourLights (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

legacy

[edit]

"The relative influence of the languages that were used is still indicated in the recommended advisory printed in all COBOL reference manuals"

Does this refer to cobol more generally or the cobol section it's under??FourLights (talk) FourLights (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]