GCC 15 introduces experimental support for COBOL as a front-end language. This allows developers to compile COBOL programs using GCC, leveraging its optimization and code generation capabilities. The implementation supports a substantial subset of the COBOL 85 standard, including features like nested programs, intrinsic functions, and file I/O. While still experimental, this addition paves the way for integrating COBOL into the GNU compiler ecosystem and potentially expanding the language's usage in new environments.
The GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), version 15, introduces a significant new feature: a front-end for the COBOL programming language. This means GCC can now parse, analyze, and compile COBOL source code, expanding the suite of languages supported by this widely used compiler infrastructure. Prior to this, developers relying on COBOL had to utilize separate, dedicated COBOL compilers. The integration of COBOL into GCC offers potential benefits such as a streamlined development process for projects involving multiple languages, leveraging the existing optimization and code generation capabilities of GCC for COBOL, and potentially fostering wider adoption and maintenance of the COBOL language by integrating it into a robust and actively developed open-source ecosystem. The addition of a COBOL front-end represents a notable expansion of GCC's functionalities and opens up new possibilities for COBOL development within the GCC environment. This development is especially noteworthy given COBOL's continued prevalence in legacy systems, particularly in financial and governmental sectors. The announcement doesn't detail specific features or the level of COBOL standard support implemented but marks a substantial milestone in broadening GCC's language coverage.
Summary of Comments ( 2 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43901191
Several Hacker News commenters expressed surprise and interest in the addition of a COBOL front-end to GCC, some questioning the rationale behind it. A few pointed out the continued usage of COBOL in legacy systems, particularly in financial and government institutions, suggesting this addition could ease migration or modernization efforts. Others discussed the technical challenges of integrating COBOL, a language with very different paradigms than those typically handled by GCC, and speculated on the completeness and performance of the implementation. Some comments also touched upon the potential for attracting new COBOL developers with more modern tooling. The thread contains some lighthearted banter about COBOL's perceived age and complexity as well.
The Hacker News post "COBOL front-end added to GCC" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43901191) has generated a number of comments discussing the inclusion of COBOL in GCC 15. Many of the comments revolve around the continued relevance and surprising longevity of COBOL in various industries, particularly financial and governmental institutions.
Several commenters express surprise that COBOL is still in use, highlighting its perceived age and the common belief that it's a "dead" language. This sentiment is often coupled with anecdotes or secondhand accounts of legacy COBOL systems still being maintained and even crucial to the operation of certain businesses.
There's a discussion on the practical implications of this addition to GCC. Some suggest that it could potentially lower the cost of maintaining these legacy systems by providing a free and open-source compiler option. Others ponder whether this will make it easier to migrate away from proprietary COBOL compilers, potentially allowing for modernization efforts.
The challenges of working with COBOL codebases are also addressed. Commenters mention the difficulties of understanding and maintaining code written decades ago, often with poor documentation. The scarcity of COBOL programmers is another recurring theme, raising concerns about who will maintain these systems in the future.
A few comments delve into the technical aspects of the GCC implementation, including speculation about its performance characteristics and compatibility with existing COBOL standards. One commenter questions the completeness of the implementation, pointing out that it doesn't yet support all COBOL features.
Some commenters express skepticism about the practical impact of this addition, arguing that the real challenge lies in the complexity of the existing COBOL systems rather than the availability of compilers. They believe that rewriting these systems in more modern languages is often a better long-term solution, albeit a complex and expensive one.
A recurring theme is the contrast between the perceived obsolescence of COBOL and its continued importance in critical systems. This leads to some humorous remarks about the "undead" nature of COBOL and its resilience in the face of newer technologies. The discussion also touches upon the reasons for COBOL's longevity, including its performance in specific applications and the inertia of large organizations.
Finally, there's some discussion about alternative approaches to dealing with legacy COBOL systems, including transpilation to other languages and the use of emulation layers. However, these are presented as complex options with their own sets of challenges.