Alex Rivera | Logout

Cobol: science and fiction

Asked 2010-06-01T14:00:55.613
15

There are a few threads about the relevance of the Cobol programming language on this forum, e.g. this thread links to a collection of them. What I am interested in here is a frequently repeated claim based on a study by Gartner from 1997: that there were around 200 billion lines of code in active use at that time!

I would like to ask some questions to verify or falsify a couple of related points. My goal is to understand if this statement has any truth to it or if it is totally unrealistic.

I apologize in advance for being a little verbose in presenting my line of thought and my own opinion on the things I am not sure about, but I think it might help to put things in context and thus highlight any wrong assumptions and conclusions I have made.


Sometimes, the "200 billion lines" number is accompanied by the added claim that this corresponded to 80% of all programming code in any language in active use. Other times, the 80% merely refer to so-called "business code" (or some other vague phrase hinting that the reader is not to count mainstream software, embedded systems or anything else where Cobol is practically non-existent). In the following I assume that the code does not include double-counting of multiple installations of the same software (since that is cheating!).

In particular in the time prior to the y2k problem, it has been noted that a lot of Cobol code is already 20 to 30 years old. That would mean it was written in the late 60ies and 70ies. At that time, the market leader was IBM with the IBM/370 mainframe. IBM has put up a historical announcement on his website quoting prices, configuration and availability. Accordin

Edit
Report

1 Answer

1

Well, you're asking in the wrong place here. This forum is dominated by .net programmers, with a significant java minority and such a age build-up that only a very small minority has any cobol experience.

The CASE tool market consisted for a large part of cobol code generators. Most tools were write-only, not two-way. That ensures there are a lot of lines of code. This market was somewhat newer than the 70s, so the volume of cobol code grew fast in the 80s and 90s.

A lot of cobol development is done by people having no significant internet access and therefore visibility. There is no need for it. Cobol prorammers are used to having in-house programming courses and paper documentation (lots of it).

[edit] Generating cobol source made a lot of sense. Cobol is very verbose and low level. The various cobol implementations are all slightly different, so configuring the code generator eliminates a lot of potential errors.

answered 2010-06-01T18:36:19.933

Your Answer