482277ee

REPLY:  d4ecf043

PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
XPost: alt.folklore.computers

Dennis Lee Bieber  wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 08:25:33 -0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
>  declaimed the following:
>
>
>>
>> COBOL is another language that historically tended to support only the
>> latest syntax, which is a pain since source files can be huge. I've
>> worked on COBOL program modules that ran to over 5000 lines back in the
>> day, i.e before 1978, when COBOL didn't yet support writing separately
>> compiled subroutines (no LINKAGE SECTION), though AFAIK COBOL has always
>> supported calling subroutines written in other languages).
>
>  LINKAGE SECTION was part of the COBOL-74 standard, and I recall it
> existed on the Xerox Sigma-6 COBOL that was used at my college when I
> attended (76-80). Our assignments may not have used it -- or we only had a
> short intro to the concept.
>
>  However, I'm fairly certain my college compiler did not support "copy
> books"... And since that time-frame meant 24x80 text terminals, and line
> mode text editors, one would have to manually duplicate the section from a
> listing... Or write the program on the IBM 029 card punch -- feeding the
> linkage section into it in duplicate mode, then inserting the copy into the
> second file...
>

Either your memory is off or this was some site restriction. I did a lot of
COBOL on a Sigma 6, and I’m sure I would have remembered this. I’m trying
to recall the dates, but the numbers won’t come - mid 70s maybe? We started
using BPM/BTM and moved on to UTS when it was released.

--
Pete

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05