[crdoconnor]

>COBOL was created 1959. Singly it out as an example of a DSL in this context is a bit like arguing against cars by pointing out the faults of the Model T Ford compared with a Tesla.

It doesn't stack up well compared to FORTRAN or LISP, which were both its contemporaries, neither of which were actually really designed with readability in mind, whereas COBOL was.

>DSL's may or may not be a good thing

This wasn't about DSLs in general. It is about the anti-pattern (dating back to 1959) of using as much pseudo-English as possible in a language in a vain attempt to make it readable, and actually making it more unreadable.

[dragonwriter]

> It doesn't stack up well compared to FORTRAN or LISP, which were both its contemporaries, neither of which were actually really designed with readability in mind, whereas COBOL was.

I dunno that I'd say that without substantial qualifications. Much as I hate COBOL, and little as I've used either, from what I remember of each I'd probably still prefer COBOL to Fortran for a large business application, if those were the only two choices I had.

I wouldn't want to use COBOL over Fortran for scientific computing, and I prefer Lisp over either for most things.