In mainframe programming, what are the key differences between the original COBOL language and the later COBOL II version?

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your understanding of the evolution of the COBOL programming language on mainframe systems, specifically the differences between the original COBOL and the later COBOL II standard. Many legacy banking, insurance, and government applications still run on COBOL platforms, so interviewers expect candidates to know why COBOL II was introduced and what technical improvements it provided over classic COBOL.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We are comparing classic COBOL to COBOL II on mainframe environments.
• We assume the candidate is familiar with basic COBOL concepts such as divisions, paragraphs, and sections.
• The focus is on language level differences and not on any specific vendor extension.
• We consider typical enhancements documented for COBOL II, such as structured programming and improved compilation options.

Concept / Approach:
The approach is to recall the main design goals of COBOL II. COBOL II was created to modernize COBOL so that code would be more structured, maintainable, and compatible with new compilation and optimization techniques. Key improvements include scope terminators like END IF and END PERFORM, support for nested programs, and better error handling. Classic COBOL programs often relied heavily on GO TO, which led to unstructured control flow. COBOL II encourages structured coding practices and improves interaction with the operating system and run time environment.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that original COBOL allowed unstructured control flow and lacked many modern structured constructs. Step 2: Remember that COBOL II introduced scope terminators such as END IF, END PERFORM, and END EVALUATE to make program logic clearer. Step 3: Note that COBOL II added better support for nested programs and modular design, which improves reuse and maintainability. Step 4: Consider that COBOL II compilers provide enhanced diagnostics, optimization options, and improved run time support compared to early COBOL compilers. Step 5: Compare these genuine language and compiler improvements with the obviously incorrect claims in the other options.

Verification / Alternative check:
A quick verification method is to ask yourself whether the description sounds like an incremental evolution of a language or a completely different technology. If an option suggests COBOL II is hardware or an unrelated scripting language, it is clearly not an incremental version. Only the option that states COBOL II adds structured programming features, better memory management, and compilation improvements correctly reflects well known differences documented in mainframe literature.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option b: Describing COBOL II as hardware is incorrect. COBOL II is a language and compiler standard, not a processor or device.
Option c: Saying COBOL II is a web only scripting language unrelated to COBOL is wrong. It is an evolution of COBOL for mainframe batch and online processing, not a web scripting language.
Option d: Claiming there is no difference ignores the many new features, structured constructs, and improved compilation options that COBOL II introduced to modernize COBOL development.

Common Pitfalls:
Candidates sometimes assume that COBOL II is only a marketing rename of COBOL, without understanding the concrete feature enhancements. Others confuse COBOL II with completely different technologies such as Java or web scripting languages. It is important to remember that COBOL II keeps the core COBOL syntax but adds structured programming, better diagnostics, and improved performance options. Confusing implementation platform details with language features can also mislead learners during interviews.

Final Answer:
COBOL II adds structured programming features such as scope terminators, better memory management, and enhanced compilation options compared to the original COBOL standard.