In Horse64:

import horses from horses.horse64.org

func main {
    var my_horse = horses.Horse(color="brown")
}

And in Horse64 Root:

import horses from horses.horse64.org

func main -> bool {
    var my_horse <- horses.Horse
    my_horse.init("brown")
    if failed(my_horse.init) {
        return no
    }

    defer my_horse.destroy()

    my_horse.run()
    if failed(my_horse.run) {
        my_horse.stop()
        return no
    }

    my_horse.stop()
    if failed(my_horse.stop) {
        return no
    }

    my_horse.eat("hay")
    if failed(my_horse.eat) {
        return no
    }

    return yes
}

In Nim:

import horses

let my_horse = Horse(color: "brown")   

Mostly it's two things:

1. COBOL is very good at some specific things that other languages can't do as well. Not that other languages do them badly, not at all, but COBOL is absurdly efficient for certain operations. You need to do basic math operations on millions of rows of data every minute? COBOL can do that easily. Many other languages can get close to that speed - maybe a few seconds off - but COBOL is often used in environments where a hundred millisecond delay can mean everything breaks. Are there other languages which can match that speed? Absolutely. Are they any of the languages every company wants to upgrade to? No.

2. COBOL's best practices are sometimes the literal opposite of what every other language expects, especially when it comes to optimizing code for efficiency. You ever seen Evaluate, COBOL's equivalent of a switch statement? Rather than being used to Evaluate a variable to check its values, its most commonly used to "EVALUATE TRUE" and then use the WHEN clauses (basically case statements) to check statements or variables that you want to be true. That can be converted to another language directly, yes, but it absolutely will not be efficient best-practices code. Most likely you're going to need someone - not an AI, not an automated process - to do one-off rewrites to keep the code performance the same. As it is I have never seen any automated tool (LLM or otherwise) convert COBOL without falling victim to this issue.

There's also a third issue in that COBOL has some specific minor capabilities that other languages just do NOT, or not to the level of flexibility and efficiency COBOL has. The most common one is COBOL's "88" picture type (variable) definitions. Think of it like being able to set an automatic evaluation on a variable that returns true if the condition is met, e.g. the variable "05 WS-ERROR-STAT PIC X." with an 88 of "88 FATAL-ERROR VALUE 'F'." would mean you could check "FATAL-ERROR" anywhere in your code to see if the value of WS-ERROR-STAT has been set to "F". The thing is, this is done basically for free (resource wise) as part of allocation, and furthermore it can be used to get or set, i.e. "SET FATAL-ERROR TO TRUE" will change the value of WS-ERROR-STAT to "F". You can also use 88s for ranges, e.g. "88 ANY-ERROR VALUES 'F' THRU 'N'.", though you can't use them for set operations that way.

Bottom line: there's nothing that perfectly recreates its efficiency, the specific way it performs efficiently, and some of its more esoteric capabilities. Anything still running COBOL probably depends HEAVILY on one or all of these things.

Doom runs Doom

On the boost app there's a tiny HD button you can click that should sharpen things up a bit.

thanks, I hate it

Rust builds a unicorn

Is it a dig against C# only being good when using it from F#, i.e. OCaml for .Net or am I overthinking this?

ho-rs

As a non-programmer, TIL Java and JavaScript are two different languages.

Person1: I built a script in Java.

Person2: So Javascript?

Person 1: NO!

When JS was being developed, Java was all the rage and it merely was riding it's coattails. At the time of its creation it was nothing like Java either.

I don't know. I thought it was a dig with certain C# dev products trying to mimic how other technologies behave, like WebForms.

you could say that it aged well

C: You build a horse. Well, it's not really a horse, but it can do almost all the essential horse-things. It's incredibly fast and compact. Your horse is named "Blue\0\0\0\0\0T~31wsXEi]DiMGW8mh^3". Oh, and now someone else owns it.

I'm really having trouble recognizing if @marcos@lemmy.world started talking bullhoreseshit, or if the post by @Diplomjodler@lemmy.world is the first to be just trolling...

ruby: you built a horse that builds a horse to build your horse. your barn is too small. it crashes. everyone is dead.

the only thing they have in common is how insufferable it is to develop with them.

It is perfect and will run for a million years.
Dodges all traps and jumps over all ditches whether you see them or not.
But you are already too old to ride it.

Oh god, I'm getting PTSD. So many parentheses