>>I've read a few messages over the past few days days which really puzzle me.
>>They seem to claim that anything that can be done in C++ can also be done in
>>COBOL and that object-oriented progamming is the same as using procedures.

>>Huh?

>>COBOL makes it extremely hard to write general-purpose subroutines.  COBOL
>>has essentially no concept of a user-defined type, for example.
>>With this code:
>>.........

I guess I didn't read it as claiming that COBOL can do what C++ can do.
It's just making a statement that COBOL has abilities that are often overlooked,
and has had an "object oriented" type capability, long before that became a buzz
word.

One thing I think to consider in the examples given (that I deleted in this
reply),
was that let's remember the "objective" of what one is trying to do.

There are uses for various languages and I don't think one should try to make
any language do all things.

I wouldn't for instance, write an editor or a screen handler with COBOL.
But then I would choose COBOL for it's purpose - Common business oriented
language.

I'd write an Accounts Payable system in COBOL, but for the screen handling, we
call view routines - that I'm pretty certain are not written in COBOL.

Paul D. Christensen
PC Enterprises Inc.
Osakis MN

Contract COBOL programmer