DT> highly based on C and C++, not COBOL.  Hell, even the US Government uses
DT> ADA!
    The US gov is supposed to use ADA for all imbeded systems - it was
    never enforced and rarely followed. Too many people had too many
    lines of code and time invested into programs. Too many business
    feel the same way about re-writting code: basically paying twice
    for the same product is not a business choice but business suicide.
    I've a friend that recently graduated with a CIS major and went to
    work for some bank like transaction job. They use a supped up version
    of COBOL still (along with some SQL(?) like language for file IO).
DT> Second is Borland C++, speaking Win32 of course.  At the recent BorCon
DT> (Borland Convention) someone aske about the future of OWL.  Borland Rep
DT> said something to the tune of this:
    I _assume_ that since Borland added the microsoft foundation classes
    along with their OWL, Borland has conceided to the MS giant's version
    of foundation classes. In other words, weeding out support for their
    version because of the popularity of VC++ (eg: PC Magazine uses only
    VC++ for the example code for windows utils and tweaks).
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------