4 ms·

It is incredible how much banking system still runs on COBOL and nightly ETL processes running on mainframes!

• shadowgovt 7y ago
  Not really. Once the software works, there is no reason to change it (and cost incentives not to).
  • toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Indeed. Cheaper to keep COBOL folks on staff and the mainframe running than to rewrite it (millions vs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in costs).
    • iamsb 7y ago
      Honestly, that is not true. As someone who had to interface with these systems, the cumulative cost of keeping them running is far greater. There are number of layers which run of top of them to support modern age use cases. The problem is no CEO/CTO at big banks who wants to keep their job is going to pull the trigger and transform it, as most likely that project will run over budget and is risky.
      • Retric 7y ago
        You also need to pay to keep the new system running. That’s the real ‘hidden’ cost that you need to be aware of. COBAL may not be sexy, but it’s stable in ways most new systems can’t hope to match.
      • walshemj 7y ago
        The experience in the UK of the TSB porting to some Java system written by Santander is a good lesson of why this is risky
      • perl4ever 7y ago
        You seem to be implying risk is not a cost.
    • felipemnoa 7y ago
      True. And if you decide to re-write the software then you will be eternally re-writing that software to keep up with whatever is trendy.
  • spookthesunset 7y ago
    > Once the software works, there is no reason to change it Well, except it doesn't work and banks are no doubt lobbying the government to avoid having to actually offer "innovative" new products. Their excuses to the government are no doubt "waaaaaahhh... we have all this legacy COBOL code and it would cost us MONEY to offer new services.... please protect us from any competition!!!" (where "innovative" means something other countries have had for decades)