Well based on my one semester using Cobol, 40 years ago, as I recall:
* Cobol compiler REQUIRES many lines of documentation describing the the program. So to some extent every program had some documentation include with programmers name, purpose, etc…
* If I ever could not remember the Cobol syntax, I just pretended to talk to it, and that worked most of the time (i.e Add A to B and put it in C, rather than C=A+B;)
* Cobol picture clause, a one line statement that would print values for checks, complete with a leading filler character (BTW: This mapped to a single instruction in the IBM 360 assembly language.)
Of course if I write the same program in Cobol and Fortran the Cobol program would be about 150 lines and the Fortran program would be about 15 lines.
And as I recall, compilation and linking of individual functions was extremely limited. So that reduced flexibility and reusability a lot.
I would not claim that Cobol would be a better choice than Java. But I can see where someone who never learned OOD or any other modern development methodology might make that claim.
Hmm… medium and large businesses have a need to create various business reports for their executives. It's possible that it's easier to process that data and produce reports using COBOL than it is with JAVA.
Its not better or worse.
Different tools for different purposes.
Java is very common
Cobol is largely considered a language for legacy tools,
though IBM has revitalized it in their applications.
It isn't. While it has direct hardware access instead of operating through a virtual machine, the number of COBOL programmers is getting steadily smaller; the cost of maintenance will expand over time as these few programmers demand higher salaries due to their rarity.
I don't know that it is. The author of your textbook might be making that claim, but it's only the opinion of the author.