6 ms·

We always have these articles about needing to learn COBOL, - I think we see more of them since there’s more pressure on old systems such as unemployment these

We always have these articles about needing to learn COBOL, - I think we see more of them since there’s more pressure on old systems such as unemployment these days - but it’s important to note to anyone reading this that learning COBOL is not going to lead to riches: I know several COBOL coders and while they make a respectable amount, it’s nowhere near the amount they’d earn at a FANG company. Learn COBOL if you want - I learned COBOL early in my career and it’s very interesting how different it is - but if you’re attempting to maximize salary you’re better off spending time learning the bleeding edge tech.

raverbashing 6y ago
I don't think any salary would be enough to compensate for the opportunity cost of not working with a modern technology and the mental strain of working with something so quirky and archaic
- js8 6y ago
  It also has upsides. It might be archaic, but the code is mostly self-contained, there are usually no layers of open source that might make behavior difficult to understand. (And for problems with middleware you just call the vendor.) Programs are typically designed to be algorithmically simple, the complexity mostly comes from history and changing business requirements. Mainframes are surprisingly transparent systems, if you learn where to look, compared to Unixes. There are many logging and tracing facilities that run all the time. For these reasons, some people actually enjoy it more to work with these systems.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    > there are usually no layers of open source that might make behavior difficult to understand Ehhhh.... this in contrast to closed systems where there are layers of closed source which lead to all sorts of unexpected behaviour without the recourse of looking under the hood to find out what is going wrong. Closed systems are harder to debug than open source systems.
    - js8 6y ago
      In my experience, it depends on other factors than just whether the SW is open source or not. Documentation helps, age of software helps (which means certain stability with respect to change and less bugs), simple architecture helps. I generally like open source, but I am skeptical when it is used as a tool to save costs by companies. (Apache foundation projects are IMHO the worst offenders.) In some sense, commercial software is the devil you know.
      - Yetanfou 6y ago
        > In some sense, commercial software is the devil you know. No, older, established projects or products are the devils you know, whether they're free software or proprietary products. Take for example Debian Stable which is, as its name implies, stable but seen as fairly stodgy and unexciting. Stodgy and unexciting is what you want in a business environment. The mere fact that there are far newer releases with loads of new features (and bugs) does not mean that you need to use them, just wait for the next stable release.
- Smoosh 6y ago
  > something so quirky and archaic Try APL. It's the 1960s equivalent of 05AB1E.
spaced-out 6y ago
>but it’s important to note to anyone reading this that learning COBOL is not going to lead to riches: I know several COBOL coders and while they make a respectable amount, it’s nowhere near the amount they’d earn at a FANG company. This goes along really great with the closing paragraph of the article: >That’s the new generation of COBOL programmers that we need: people to do the tedious, unglamorous work of re-inventing, re-engineering, and automating government applications, business applications, and much more. Reimagining these processes is creative work, but it requires a different kind of creativity from implementing a new website. Gee, why is it that people are trying to hard to get into FAANGs rather than learning COBOL.

raverbashing 6y ago

I don't think any salary would be enough to compensate for the opportunity cost of not working with a modern technology and the mental strain of working with something so quirky and archaic

js8 6y ago
It also has upsides. It might be archaic, but the code is mostly self-contained, there are usually no layers of open source that might make behavior difficult to understand. (And for problems with middleware you just call the vendor.) Programs are typically designed to be algorithmically simple, the complexity mostly comes from history and changing business requirements. Mainframes are surprisingly transparent systems, if you learn where to look, compared to Unixes. There are many logging and tracing facilities that run all the time. For these reasons, some people actually enjoy it more to work with these systems.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  > there are usually no layers of open source that might make behavior difficult to understand Ehhhh.... this in contrast to closed systems where there are layers of closed source which lead to all sorts of unexpected behaviour without the recourse of looking under the hood to find out what is going wrong. Closed systems are harder to debug than open source systems.
  - js8 6y ago
    In my experience, it depends on other factors than just whether the SW is open source or not. Documentation helps, age of software helps (which means certain stability with respect to change and less bugs), simple architecture helps. I generally like open source, but I am skeptical when it is used as a tool to save costs by companies. (Apache foundation projects are IMHO the worst offenders.) In some sense, commercial software is the devil you know.
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      > In some sense, commercial software is the devil you know. No, older, established projects or products are the devils you know, whether they're free software or proprietary products. Take for example Debian Stable which is, as its name implies, stable but seen as fairly stodgy and unexciting. Stodgy and unexciting is what you want in a business environment. The mere fact that there are far newer releases with loads of new features (and bugs) does not mean that you need to use them, just wait for the next stable release.
Smoosh 6y ago
> something so quirky and archaic Try APL. It's the 1960s equivalent of 05AB1E.

spaced-out 6y ago

>but it’s important to note to anyone reading this that learning COBOL is not going to lead to riches: I know several COBOL coders and while they make a respectable amount, it’s nowhere near the amount they’d earn at a FANG company. This goes along really great with the closing paragraph of the article: >That’s the new generation of COBOL programmers that we need: people to do the tedious, unglamorous work of re-inventing, re-engineering, and automating government applications, business applications, and much more. Reimagining these processes is creative work, but it requires a different kind of creativity from implementing a new website. Gee, why is it that people are trying to hard to get into FAANGs rather than learning COBOL.