Editing COBOL (section)

===COBOL 60===
On 28 and 29 May 1959, a meeting was held at [[the Pentagon]] to discuss the creation of a common programming language for business (exactly one year after the Zürich [[ALGOL 58]] meeting). It was attended by 41 people and was chaired by Phillips.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1109/MAHC.1985.10047| title = Early Meetings of the Conference on Data Systems Languages| journal = IEEE Annals of the History of Computing| volume = 7| issue = 4| pages = 316–325| year = 1985 | s2cid = 35625728}}</ref> The Department of Defense was concerned about whether it could run the same data processing programs on different computers. [[FORTRAN]], the only mainstream language at the time, lacked the features needed to write such programs.{{sfn|Sammet|2004|p=104}}

Representatives enthusiastically described a language that could work in a wide variety of environments, from banking and insurance to utilities and inventory control. They agreed unanimously that more people should be able to program, and that the new language should not be restricted by the limitations of contemporary technology. A majority agreed that the language should make maximal use of English, be capable of change, be machine-independent, and be easy to use, even at the expense of power.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=286}}

The meeting resulted in the creation of a [[steering committee]] and short, intermediate, and long-range committees. The short-range committee was given until September (three months) to produce specifications for an interim language, which would then be improved upon by the other committees.{{sfn|Conner|1984|p=ID/9}}{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=201}} Their official mission, however, was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing programming languages; it did not explicitly direct them to create a new language.{{sfn|Sammet|2004|p=104}}

The deadline was met with disbelief by the short-range committee.{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=132}} One member, [[Betty Holberton]], described the three-month deadline as "gross optimism" and doubted that the language really would be a stopgap.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=288}} The steering committee met on 4 June and agreed to name the entire activity the ''Committee on Data Systems Languages'', or [[CODASYL]], and to form an executive committee.{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=203}}

The short-range committee members represented six computer manufacturers and three government agencies. The computer manufacturers were [[Burroughs Corporation]], [[IBM]], [[Honeywell|Minneapolis-Honeywell]] (Honeywell Labs), [[RCA]], [[Sperry Rand]], and [[Sylvania Electric Products]]. The government agencies were the [[US Air Force|U.S. Air Force]], the Navy's [[David Taylor Model Basin]], and the [[National Bureau of Standards]] (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology).{{sfn|CODASYL|1969|loc=§ I.2.1.1}} The committee was chaired by [[Joseph Wegstein]] of the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Work began by investigating data descriptions, statements, existing applications, and user experiences.{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=204}}

The committee mainly examined the [[FLOW-MATIC]], [[AIMACO]], and [[COMTRAN]] programming languages.{{sfn|Sammet|2004|p=104}}{{sfn|CODASYL|1969|loc=§ I.1.2}} The FLOW-MATIC language was particularly influential because it had been implemented and because AIMACO was a derivative of it with only minor changes.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=290}}<ref name=cisn>{{cite journal | last = Sammet | first = Jean | author-link = Jean Sammet | title = The Early History of COBOL | journal = ACM SIGPLAN Notices | volume = 13 | issue = 8 | pages = 121–161 | year = 1978 | doi =10.1145/960118.808378 | s2cid = 10743643 }}</ref> FLOW-MATIC's inventor, Grace Hopper, also served as a technical adviser to the committee.{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=132}} FLOW-MATIC's major contributions to COBOL were long variable names, English words for commands, and the separation of data descriptions and instructions.{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=217}} Hopper is sometimes called "the mother of COBOL" or "the grandmother of COBOL",<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Adams|first=Vicki Porter|date=5 October 1981|title=Captain Grace M. Hopper: the Mother of COBOL |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JT0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA33|magazine=InfoWorld|volume=3|issue=20|page=33 |issn=0199-6649}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Betts|first=Mitch|date=6 January 1992|title=Grace Hopper, mother of Cobol, dies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J-_T3bxgvMwC&pg=PA14|journal=Computerworld |volume=26|issue=1|page=14}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Lohr|first=Steve|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XfPLVx6qS_cC&pg=PA52|title=Go To: The Story of the Math Majors, Bridge Players, Engineers, Chess Wizards, Maverick Scientists, and Iconoclasts—The Programmers Who Created the Software Revolution|publisher=[[Basic Books]]|year=2008|isbn=978-0786730766|page=52}}</ref> although [[Jean Sammet]], a lead designer of COBOL, said Hopper "was not the mother, creator, or developer of Cobol."<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/pioneering-software-engineer-and-cobol-co-designer-1.3111332 |title=Pioneering software engineer and Cobol co-designer|newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] }}</ref><ref name="creators">{{Cite journal |last=Sammet|first=Jean E.|date=March 2000|title=The real creators of Cobol|journal=IEEE Software |volume=17|issue=2|pages=30–32|doi=10.1109/52.841602 |issn=1937-4194|quote=The Short-Range Committee worked diligently from June 1959 on, but there were great difficulties in having a fairly large committee try to create a programming language. In November, the Short-Range Committee chair appointed six people to develop specifications for consideration: William Selden and Gertrude Tierney (IBM), Howard Bromberg and Norman Discount (RCA), and Vernon Reeves and Jean E. Sammet (Sylvania Electric Products). We worked for two full weeks (including some round-the-clock sessions) in November 1959 and sent the proposed specifications to the full Short-Range Committee, which accepted almost all of them. After some editing (by the same six people), we turned in the specifications as a final report in December to the Executive Committee, which accepted them in January 1960. After some further editing, the Government Printing Office issued Cobol 60. [...] [Grace Hopper] did not participate in its work except through the general guidance she gave to her staff who were direct committee members. Thus, while her indirect influence was very important, regrettably the frequent repeated statements that "Grace Hopper developed Cobol" or "Grace Hopper was a codeveloper of Cobol" or "Grace Hopper is the mother of Cobol" are just not correct.}}</ref>

IBM's COMTRAN language, invented by [[Bob Bemer]], was regarded as a competitor to FLOW-MATIC{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=292}}{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=131}} by a short-range committee made up of colleagues of Grace Hopper.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=296}} Some of its features were not incorporated into COBOL so that it would not look like IBM had dominated the design process,{{sfn|Conner|1984|p=ID/9}} and Jean Sammet said in 1981 that there had been a "strong anti-IBM bias" from some committee members (herself included).{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=221}} In one case, after Roy Goldfinger, author of the COMTRAN manual and intermediate-range committee member, attended a subcommittee meeting to support his language and encourage the use of algebraic expressions, Grace Hopper sent a memo to the short-range committee reiterating Sperry Rand's efforts to create a language based on English.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=291}}

In 1980, Grace Hopper commented that "COBOL 60 is 95% FLOW-MATIC" and that COMTRAN had had an "extremely small" influence. Furthermore, she said that she would claim that work was influenced by both FLOW-MATIC and COMTRAN only to "keep other people happy [so they] wouldn't try to knock us out.".<ref name="Hopper Oral History">{{cite web | url=http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_History/Hopper_Grace/102702026.05.01.pdf | title=Oral History of Captain Grace Hopper | publisher=[[Computer History Museum]] | date=December 1980 | access-date=28 June 2014 | page=37 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171225202555/http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_History/Hopper_Grace/102702026.05.01.pdf | archive-date=25 December 2017 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

Features from COMTRAN incorporated into COBOL included formulas,{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=218}} the [[#PICTURE clause|{{code|PICTURE}} clause]],{{sfn|Marcotty|1978a|p=268}} an improved <code>IF</code> statement, which obviated the need for [[GO TO]]s, and a more robust file management system.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=292}}

The usefulness of the committee's work was a subject of great debate. While some members thought the language had too many compromises and was the result of [[design by committee]], others felt it was better than the three languages examined. Some felt the language was too complex; others, too simple.{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|pp=205–206}}

Controversial features included those some considered useless or too advanced for data processing users. Such features included [[Boolean expression]]s, [[formula]]s, and table ''{{dfn|subscripts}}'' (indices).{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|loc=Figure 8}}{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|pp=230–231}} Another point of controversy was whether to make keywords context-sensitive and the effect that would have on readability.{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|loc=Figure 8}} Although context-sensitive keywords were rejected, the approach was later used in [[PL/I]] and partially in COBOL from 2002.{{sfn|ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22/WG 4|2001|p=846}} Little consideration was given to [[interactivity]], interaction with [[operating system]]s (few existed at that time), and functions (thought of as purely mathematical and of no use in data processing).{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=220}}{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=228}}

The specifications were presented to the executive committee on 4 September. They fell short of expectations: Joseph Wegstein noted that "it contains rough spots and requires some additions," and Bob Bemer later described them as a "hodgepodge." The committee was given until December to improve it.{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=132}}

At a mid-September meeting, the committee discussed the new language's name. Suggestions included "BUSY" (Business System), "INFOSYL" (Information System Language), and "COCOSYL" (Common Computer Systems Language).{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=210}} It is unclear who coined the name "COBOL",{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=132: ''We can't find a single individual who admits coining the acronym "COBOL"''}}{{sfn|Sammet|1978a|p=210: ''The next day, the name COBOL was finally agreed to as an acronym for COmmon Business Oriented Language. Unfortunately, my notes do not show who made that suggestion''}} although Bob Bemer later claimed it had been his suggestion.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4138-2004Jun24.html | title=Computer Pioneer Bob Bemer, 84 | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=25 June 2004 | access-date=28 June 2014 | page=B06 | first=Patricia | last=Sullivan}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bobbemer.com/arranga.htm|title=THE COBOL REPORT - Interview with Bob Bemer - the Father of COBOL|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180402200259/http://www.bobbemer.com/arranga.htm|archive-date=2 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cobolreport.com/cobolreport/archives/TCR_bemer.htm|title=THE COBOL REPORT - Interview with Bob Bemer - the Father of COBOL|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031223115509/http://cobolreport.com/cobolreport/archives/TCR_bemer.htm|archive-date=23 December 2003}}</ref>

In October, the intermediate-range committee received copies of the [[FACT (computer language)|FACT]] language specification created by [[Roy Nutt]]. Its features impressed the committee so much that they passed a resolution to base COBOL on it.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=293}}

This was a blow to the short-range committee, who had made good progress on the specification. Despite being technically superior, FACT had not been created with portability in mind or through manufacturer and user consensus. It also lacked a demonstrable implementation,{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=132}} allowing supporters of a FLOW-MATIC-based COBOL to overturn the resolution. RCA representative Howard Bromberg also blocked FACT, so that RCA's work on a COBOL implementation would not go to waste.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=294}}

It soon became apparent that the committee was too large to make any further progress quickly. A frustrated Howard Bromberg bought a $15 tombstone with "COBOL" engraved on it and sent it to Charles Phillips to demonstrate his displeasure.{{efn|The tombstone is currently at the [[Computer History Museum]].<ref>{{cite book | title=COBOL Tombstone | year=1960 | url=http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X572.85 | publisher=Computer History Museum | access-date=29 June 2014}}</ref>}}<ref name="Tombstone story">{{cite journal | url=http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/TCMR-V13.pdf | title=The Story of the COBOL Tombstone | journal=The Computer Museum Report | date=Summer 1985 | access-date=29 June 2014 | volume=13 | pages=8–9 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140403015336/http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/TCMR-V13.pdf | archive-date=3 April 2014 | url-status=live }}</ref>{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=130}}

A subcommittee was formed to analyze existing languages and was made up of six individuals:{{sfn|Sammet|2004|p=104}}{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=289}}

* William Selden and Gertrude Tierney of IBM,
* Howard Bromberg and Howard Discount of RCA,
* Vernon Reeves and [[Jean E. Sammet]] of Sylvania Electric Products.

The subcommittee did most of the work creating the specification, leaving the short-range committee to review and modify their work before producing the finished specification.{{sfn|Sammet|2004|p=104}}

The specifications were approved by the executive committee on 8 January 1960, and sent to the government printing office, which printed them as ''COBOL 60''. The language's stated objectives were to allow efficient, portable programs to be easily written, to allow users to move to new systems with minimal effort and cost, and to be suitable for inexperienced programmers.{{sfn|CODASYL|1969|loc=§ I.1.1}}

The CODASYL Executive Committee later created the COBOL Maintenance Committee to answer questions from users and vendors and to improve and expand the specifications.{{sfn|Brown|1976|p=47}}

During 1960, the list of manufacturers planning to build COBOL compilers grew. By September, five more manufacturers had joined CODASYL ([[Bendix Corporation|Bendix]], [[Control Data Corporation]], [[General Electric]] (GE), [[National Cash Register]], and [[Philco]]), and all represented manufacturers had announced COBOL compilers. GE and IBM planned to integrate COBOL into their own languages, GECOM and COMTRAN, respectively. In contrast, [[International Computers and Tabulators]] planned to replace their language, CODEL, with COBOL.{{sfn|Bemer|1971|p=133}}

Meanwhile, RCA and Sperry Rand worked on creating COBOL compilers. The first COBOL program ran on 17 August on an RCA 501.{{sfn|Beyer|2009|p=297}} On 6 and 7 December, the same COBOL program (albeit with minor changes) ran on an RCA computer and a Remington-Rand [[Univac]] computer, demonstrating that compatibility could be achieved.<ref name="Williams12">{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KKmiw-_2gYIC&pg=PT124 | title=Grace Hopper: Admiral of the Cyber Sea | publisher=US Naval Institute Press | isbn=978-1612512655 | date=10 November 2012 | last=Williams | first=Kathleen Broome | oclc=818867202}}</ref>

The relative influence of the languages that were used is still indicated in the recommended advisory printed in all COBOL reference manuals:
{{blockquote|COBOL is an industry language and is not the property of any company or group of companies, or of any organization or group of organizations.
No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by any contributor or by the CODASYL COBOL Committee as to the accuracy and functioning of the
programming system and language. Moreover, no responsibility is assumed by any contributor or by the committee in connection therewith. The authors and copyright holders of the copyrighted material used herein are as follows:

{{quote|style=font-size: inherit|FLOW-MATIC (trademark of [[Unisys Corporation]]), Programming for the UNIVAC (R) I and II, Data Automation Systems, copyrighted 1958, 1959, by Unisys Corporation; IBM Commercial Translator Form No. F28-8013, copyrighted 1959 by IBM; FACT, DSI 27A5260-2760, copyrighted 1960 by Minneapolis-Honeywell.}}

They have specifically authorized the use of this material, in whole or in part, in the COBOL specifications. Such authorization extends to the reproduction and use of COBOL specifications in programming manuals or similar publications.<ref>Compaq Computer Corporation: ''Compaq COBOL Reference Manual'', Order Number: AA–Q2G0F–TK October 2000, Page xviii; Fujitsu Corporation: ''Net Cobol Language Reference'', Version 15, January 2009; IBM Corporation: ''Enterprise COBOL for z/OS Language Reference'', Version 4 Release 1, SC23-8528-00, December 2007</ref>}}