The encyclopedia · Software & IT · Technical decision · 1959–1960s
COBOL won business computing with one English-like language that ran on any machine
In 1959 the US Department of Defense sponsored one common business language, readable English that ran on any vendor's computer.
U.S. Department of Defense · CODASYL Short Range Committee
The solution
In the late 1950s every computer maker had its own way of programming, so business applications had to be rewritten for each machine. On April 8, 1959, manufacturers, users and academics met at the University of Pennsylvania to discuss a common business language, and the US Department of Defense agreed to sponsor the effort.
At a Pentagon meeting on May 28–29, 1959, three committees were formed; the Short Range Committee, chaired by Joseph Wegstein of the National Bureau of Standards, was to specify the language. It drew on Grace Hopper's FLOW-MATIC, and on November 7, 1959 a six-person subgroup produced the final COBOL specification, released in December 1959.
The design goals were easy readability and as much machine independence as possible. Because the specification was common and public, any vendor could build a compiler, and the same program could run on machines from different manufacturers.
Why it worked
- English-like syntax made the language readable by business users.
- Machine independence broke the link between software and vendor hardware.
- A single Department of Defense sponsor forced rival manufacturers to cooperate.
- A public specification let every vendor build its own compiler.
What can be applied
When buyers share a pain, an open spec written in the users' language can beat each vendor's proprietary lock-in; an anchor customer that speaks for the whole market forces cooperation.
Aftermath
A skeptical programmer even made a tombstone for COBOL, which is now in the Computer History Museum's collection, but the language survived: COBOL still runs business systems for companies and governments today, and the 1959 specification remains one of the most consequential public standards in software.
Sources
spotted an error? The archive wants to know.