On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Fred Cisin <ci...@xenosoft.com> wrote:
> you could feed the cards through an INTERPRETER, which printed the card >>> content on the card. >>> >> [snip] >> >>> For many years, I kept around a plug-board labelled "COBOL INTERPRETER", >>> just to prove that a COBOL interpreter was possible :-) >>> >> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015, Eric Christopherson wrote: > >> Are you using "interpreter" in two senses here, or just one? That is to >> say, I'm not sure if you're saying the "COBOL interpreter" was just a >> program that printed COBOL source on a punched card, or if you mean it >> actually ran the program. >> > > Yes, I was deliberately conflating two disparate meanings of the word. > When a friend was discussing compilers V interpreters, I pointed to the > plug-board, and said, "SEE! There IS a COBOL interpreter!" > > The board was itself not a COBOL interpreter, nor even intended to be > labelled as such. The ladelling was intended to identify that it was a > plug-board FOR the Interpreter (not BEING an interpeter), and that it was > plug-wire programmed for doing decks of cards containing COBOL code. > "COBOL" and "INTERPRETER" should have been two separate labels. I kept the > board around for years, just for the sake of making that ridiculous > misinterpretation. > > > The plug board could control which columns of the punch card appeared in which columns of the printout; it served as a simple FORMAT program. The COBOL interpreter plugboard rearranged the COBOL source on the punch card to a more readable style on the printer. -- Charles
