Editing COBOL (section)

===Compatibility issues===
COBOL was intended to be a highly portable, "common" language. However, by 2001, around 300 dialects had been created.<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.cs.vu.nl/grammarware/500/500.pdf | title=Cracking the 500-language problem | journal=IEEE Software |date=November–December 2001 | volume=18 | issue=6 | page=79 | doi=10.1109/52.965809 | first1=Ralf | last1=Lämmel | first2=Chris | last2=Verhoef | hdl=1871/9853 | author-link2 = Chris Verhoef| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085841/http://www.cs.vu.nl/grammarware/500/500.pdf | archive-date=19 August 2014 | url-status=dead}}</ref> One source of dialects was the standard itself: the 1974 standard was composed of one mandatory nucleus and eleven functional modules, each containing two or three levels of support. This permitted 104,976 possible variants.<ref>{{cite journal | title=Towards more portable COBOL | journal=The Computer Journal | date=April 1979 | volume=22 | issue=4 | pages=290 | doi=10.1093/comjnl/22.4.290 | first1=T. J. | last1=Howkins | first2=M. T. | last2=Harandi | doi-access=free }}</ref>

COBOL-85 was not fully compatible with earlier versions, and its development was controversial. Joseph T. Brophy, the [[Chief Information Officer|CIO]] of [[St. Paul Travelers|Travelers Insurance]], spearheaded an effort to inform COBOL users of the heavy reprogramming costs of implementing the new standard.{{sfn|Garfunkel|1987|p=11}} As a result, the ANSI COBOL Committee received more than 2,200 letters from the public, mostly negative, requiring the committee to make changes. On the other hand, conversion to COBOL-85 was thought to increase productivity in future years, thus justifying the conversion costs.{{sfn|Garfunkel|1987|p=15}}