>COBOL was created 1959. Singly it out as an example of a DSL in this context is a bit like arguing against cars by pointing out the faults of the Model T Ford compared with a Tesla.
It doesn't stack up well compared to FORTRAN or LISP, which were both its contemporaries, neither of which were actually really designed with readability in mind, whereas COBOL was.
>DSL's may or may not be a good thing
This wasn't about DSLs in general. It is about the anti-pattern (dating back to 1959) of using as much pseudo-English as possible in a language in a vain attempt to make it readable, and actually making it more unreadable.
> It doesn't stack up well compared to FORTRAN or LISP, which were both its contemporaries, neither of which were actually really designed with readability in mind, whereas COBOL was.
I dunno that I'd say that without substantial qualifications. Much as I hate COBOL, and little as I've used either, from what I remember of each I'd probably still prefer COBOL to Fortran for a large business application, if those were the only two choices I had.
I wouldn't want to use COBOL over Fortran for scientific computing, and I prefer Lisp over either for most things.
It doesn't stack up well compared to FORTRAN or LISP, which were both its contemporaries, neither of which were actually really designed with readability in mind, whereas COBOL was.
>DSL's may or may not be a good thing
This wasn't about DSLs in general. It is about the anti-pattern (dating back to 1959) of using as much pseudo-English as possible in a language in a vain attempt to make it readable, and actually making it more unreadable.