• DOI:10.1145/948176.948186
• Corpus ID: 33803213

In defense of teaching structured COBOL as computer science: (or, notes on being sage struck)

@article{Tompkins1983InDO,
  title={In defense of teaching structured COBOL as computer science: (or, notes on being sage struck)},
  author={Howard E. Tompkins},
  journal={ACM SIGPLAN Notices},
  year={1983},
  volume={18},
  pages={86-94}
}

• H. Tompkins
• Published 1 April 1983
• Education
• ACM SIGPLAN Notices

Sometimes we discover unpleasant articles which make highly controversial assertions that are potentially damaging to our colleagues, our ideals, and our students. [i] When such articles are written by evident lightweights, we go on about the day's business. However, when such articles are written by an acknowledged sage and successful revolutionary of our profession, we are in difficulties. Suppressing our dissent is professionally dishonest, so dissent we must, even if the current "in" group in the profession is sure to castigate us, or possibly (horrors!) dismiss us as a lightweight and go on about the day's business. All this is made even worse when the sage wraps himself in the cloak of Galileo Galilei! That's my role, darn it; the sage can play the role of the Pope if he wants. After all, he's the one who claims to have "the truth". I'm just reporting what I see. (But I mean no heresy! Honest!) COBOL programs with convoluted control flow indeed tend to "cripple the mind" [i] (although the usual American term is 'boggle the mind", because the effect is usually temporary). Anyone who is permanently deformed by such an experience clearly should be in another profession. Regrettably, there are too many such business application programs written by programmers that have never had the benefit of structured COBOL taught well by someone with a good knowledge of Computer Science. A major reason for inadequate COBOL is that too many good Computer Scientists have ignored it, spurned its looked down their noses at it, refused to learn it well or teach it, and so have failed the business and industry that indirectly supports them, and directly supports many of their graduates. Computer Science is about to reap the whirlwind for such negligence. (What a time for sage E.W.D. to light a bonfire!) There is an active movement afoot in the United States, largely sponsored by DPMA and local business computer user groups, to promote a new discipline called Information Systems, which will have less programming content, which will sometimes say that programming is a lowly task to be avoided by those who aspire to be analysts, and which will contain a substantial "soft" component, rather than the '~arder" material of Computer Science. For example, much will be made of "the total systems approach" and "organizational techniques". Now, some of that "soft" stuff is sadly lacking in Computer Science, and should be …