TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Gee, I thought COBOL was supposed to be self-documenting. <evil-g>
Seriously, this question is going to come up a lot in the next few years. A lot of the code that's going to break in 2000 is COBOL.
Mike -dot- huber -at- software -dot- rockwell -dot- com
Grammar and spelling are tools to be used in moderation.
From: jerolynn cochrane [SMTP:cochrane -at- CARIBSURF -dot- COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 1997 7:08 PM
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Subject: COBOL Translations?
I'm an ex-lurker and I'm back! And glad to be.
I've been asked to quote on a job which is documenting a 4-year old COBOL
application which has since been customized.
The burning question is:
Do any tools exist to convert COBOL code to some form of documentation, or
to extract some of the useful code?
The other question is:
Can you use the number of lines of code (100,000 for this one) as a factor
in estimating the time required to do the job? If you can, can I? Any
guidelines on this one?