4 ms·

is the inertia of rewriting these systems in a modern stack so great that it's cheaper to keep finding COBOL specialists forever? why not just sit down and rewr

is the inertia of rewriting these systems in a modern stack so great that it's cheaper to keep finding COBOL specialists forever? why not just sit down and rewrite these systems?

cultus 7y ago
COBOL is unstructured. It doesn't even have functions. When you've got some million+ line tangled mass that has all kinds of undocumented behavior, it's really better just to add more duct tape and punt it off to the poor bastard who actually has to fix it in 20 years.
- neverartful 7y ago
  COBOL for IBM mainframe running z/OS does have subroutines. (I don't know if you're making a distinction between procedures and functions.)
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Since 1985 that COBOL can be structured, and since 2002 object oriented as well, with the latest ISO update being done in 2014 Besides compiling to native code, there are compilers that target JVM and CLR as well.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    > there are compilers that target JVM and CLR So could you wrap it and slowly add new features and replace pieces with Java code over time, using JVM for interop?
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      Yes, it is possible, for example check Visual Cobol from Micro Focus. https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overview https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overv...
  - cultus 7y ago
    True, but no one is using OO Cobol, since it's all ancient legacy stuff.
kryptiskt 7y ago
It has been done many times, sometimes successfully. Other times it ends up costing hundreds of millions over budget before the effort is abandoned and there is nothing to show for it.
- leoc 7y ago
  As late as 2014, at least, the US federal government was still processing its retirement claims on paper, in a decently large and rather nice-looking cave in Pennsylvania: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587305/Crazy-Cave-one-examples-government-bureaucracy-laying-waste-taxpayer-dollars.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587305/Crazy-Cave-... .
rtempaccount1 7y ago
In many cases (e.g. banks) these systems have been running for decades, they're often badly documented and have had a lot of fixes applied for issues that arise. Re-writing that, is going to be a nightmare, as you've got no spec. to work from and mistakes may not show up immediately (think monthly or annual payment processes) It's a very high risk endevour with little immediate reward for the team doing it. If it goes perfectly, no-one notices, if it goes badly it could seriously impact your whole company.
- Twisell 7y ago
  Same logic apply to climate change issues. There is little immediate reward so let this dumpster fire explode on our kids... It doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good logic. We desperately need more long term thinking.
  - analognoise 7y ago
    Counterpoint: a system that runs for 20, 30, 40 years without any serious downtime is the definition of long term thinking.
    - rtempaccount1 7y ago
      except of course where the system is ossified and you can no longer make changes for fear of affecting that lack of downtime. In the organizations I've seen with mainframes, what happened was a panoply of supporting systems sprung up where new requirements existed as everyone was afraid of making significant changes to the mainframe environment.

is the inertia of rewriting these systems in a modern stack so great that it's cheaper to keep finding COBOL specialists forever? why not just sit down and rewrite these systems?

cultus 7y ago

COBOL is unstructured. It doesn't even have functions. When you've got some million+ line tangled mass that has all kinds of undocumented behavior, it's really better just to add more duct tape and punt it off to the poor bastard who actually has to fix it in 20 years.

neverartful 7y ago
COBOL for IBM mainframe running z/OS does have subroutines. (I don't know if you're making a distinction between procedures and functions.)
pjmlp 7y ago
Since 1985 that COBOL can be structured, and since 2002 object oriented as well, with the latest ISO update being done in 2014 Besides compiling to native code, there are compilers that target JVM and CLR as well.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  > there are compilers that target JVM and CLR So could you wrap it and slowly add new features and replace pieces with Java code over time, using JVM for interop?
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Yes, it is possible, for example check Visual Cobol from Micro Focus. https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overview https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/visual-cobol/overv...
- cultus 7y ago
  True, but no one is using OO Cobol, since it's all ancient legacy stuff.

kryptiskt 7y ago

It has been done many times, sometimes successfully. Other times it ends up costing hundreds of millions over budget before the effort is abandoned and there is nothing to show for it.

leoc 7y ago
As late as 2014, at least, the US federal government was still processing its retirement claims on paper, in a decently large and rather nice-looking cave in Pennsylvania: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587305/Crazy-Cave-one-examples-government-bureaucracy-laying-waste-taxpayer-dollars.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587305/Crazy-Cave-... .

rtempaccount1 7y ago

In many cases (e.g. banks) these systems have been running for decades, they're often badly documented and have had a lot of fixes applied for issues that arise. Re-writing that, is going to be a nightmare, as you've got no spec. to work from and mistakes may not show up immediately (think monthly or annual payment processes) It's a very high risk endevour with little immediate reward for the team doing it. If it goes perfectly, no-one notices, if it goes badly it could seriously impact your whole company.

Twisell 7y ago
Same logic apply to climate change issues. There is little immediate reward so let this dumpster fire explode on our kids... It doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good logic. We desperately need more long term thinking.
- analognoise 7y ago
  Counterpoint: a system that runs for 20, 30, 40 years without any serious downtime is the definition of long term thinking.
  - rtempaccount1 7y ago
    except of course where the system is ossified and you can no longer make changes for fear of affecting that lack of downtime. In the organizations I've seen with mainframes, what happened was a panoply of supporting systems sprung up where new requirements existed as everyone was afraid of making significant changes to the mainframe environment.