This is pretty neat, I'm not a huge COBOL fan but actually got paid once to write code that generated outreach mail for political correspondence using voter registration data. For that, it worked really well and I could certainly appreciate the appeal for business process work.<p>Weirdly though, I get put off by their name, as my brain wants to pronounce it with a long o sound instead of the 'eh' sound from 'works' (werx as a spelling works better for me than worx, no pun intended). It has me wondering if people pronounce 'Torx' screws as 'Turks' screws.
I've heard that GCC is notoriously difficult to create a front end for and that is one of the reasons people liked using LLVM. Has this improved recently or are people just powering through the internal code to get this working?
I want to look at the parser for the COBOL syntax, but I'm not sure if I'll ever be in a place emotionally to do so.<p>Kudos to the folks that are writing the parser!
Glad to see gcc getting support for more languages!<p>It's nice to be able to use the same compiler for everything (not that I use cobol, or plan to use it...)
How much COBOL runs on platforms other then the Mainframe? My limited COBOL experience was while working for a Mainframe software vender. I have not scene anything about people running COBOL in production on non Mainframe platforms, doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Oh, I've mistakenly read that as "Develop GCC using COBOL".<p>And this is not the existing GnuCobol compiler <a href="https://gnucobol.sourceforge.io/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://gnucobol.sourceforge.io/</a>