4 ms·

The problem with COBOL is not exactly the framework per se, it is the suspicion that the places that use it don't prize good engineering and don't have a sound

The problem with COBOL is not exactly the framework per se, it is the suspicion that the places that use it don't prize good engineering and don't have a sound technological leadership. As per the Peter Drucker terminology, if you use COBOL then programming is likely a cost center in your organization. True, it is a prejudice. Disregard for programmers is also common among organizations that adopt "cool" technologies. And quite often they also suffer from other specific problems (e.g.: ageism, obsession for the hype "du jour"). But prejudices are like that, they just happen.

bumby 6y ago
This rings true from the article. Note that one the biggest users stated are governments, not exactly known as bastions for valuing IT and being ahead of the curve. I have no issues with COBOL, but I’d like to know the why behind its continued use before joining that org. After working for a couple organizations that had extremely old code infrastructure, there’s world of difference between “we maintain it because it’s the right technological risk” vs “we’re too lazy/scared/incompetent to move away from it”
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > Note that one the biggest users stated are governments Governments use to have extremely large databases of extremely critical data that has to be collected and processed in a secure, correct, and timely basis or the agency will be in breach of some law that governs it. It's not surprising they were early adopters of large computers. Traditionally, everything that's not forbidden is implicitly permitted in private initiative. In government, it's usually the reverse: anything that's not explicitly allowed by law is forbidden. And sometimes a crime. This selects for very risk-averse organizations. The environments where these COBOL programs run are also remarkably stable. If it's running now, it'll most likely continue to run for the next 20 years of software and hardware updates. A lot of systems still think they are reading and writing tapes.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I would tend to agree and would classify those reasons you stated as the "right technical risk" category. Although I don't think it's quite as bad as anything not being explicitly allowed is deemed illegal. It's not quite that strict, project managers can modernize just within certain limits (e.g., you can't just host on any cloud, but must be on a government approved cloud service). However, I have worked in some of those environments where programmers refused to change, admittedly due to their unwillingness to learn despite their customer wanting the change. Even at organizations with large risk-adverse datasets, there's a desire to change but an inability to execute. The VA for example, has struggled for decades to modernize their system despite sinking millions and millions of dollars into it. >If it's running now, it'll most likely continue to run for the next 20 years of software and hardware updates. This is fine if the system is expected to remain static. Problems often arise when hardware or software are expected to change and still run the same legacy code.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      > Problems often arise when hardware or software are expected to change and still run the same legacy code. One of the selling points of IBM mainframes is the pretty flawless backwards compatibility. I wouldn't be surprised if you could run unmodified binaries compiled for the 360 model 20 on a z15.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  I keep reading that COBOL skills are "in demand", but I keep not seeing evidence of it in terms of actual salaries. Machine learning is actually in demand - it pays well.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I believe much of the salary is an effect on the institutions that need the programmers. Governments are often the organizations needing COBOL programmers, but government salaries are not commensurate with the tech industry (often due to bureaucratic limits), especially when compared to the consumer tech industry. In that context, pay caps out at around $170k no matter how in demand the skill is

bumby 6y ago

This rings true from the article. Note that one the biggest users stated are governments, not exactly known as bastions for valuing IT and being ahead of the curve. I have no issues with COBOL, but I’d like to know the why behind its continued use before joining that org. After working for a couple organizations that had extremely old code infrastructure, there’s world of difference between “we maintain it because it’s the right technological risk” vs “we’re too lazy/scared/incompetent to move away from it”

rbanffy 6y ago
> Note that one the biggest users stated are governments Governments use to have extremely large databases of extremely critical data that has to be collected and processed in a secure, correct, and timely basis or the agency will be in breach of some law that governs it. It's not surprising they were early adopters of large computers. Traditionally, everything that's not forbidden is implicitly permitted in private initiative. In government, it's usually the reverse: anything that's not explicitly allowed by law is forbidden. And sometimes a crime. This selects for very risk-averse organizations. The environments where these COBOL programs run are also remarkably stable. If it's running now, it'll most likely continue to run for the next 20 years of software and hardware updates. A lot of systems still think they are reading and writing tapes.
- bumby 6y ago
  I would tend to agree and would classify those reasons you stated as the "right technical risk" category. Although I don't think it's quite as bad as anything not being explicitly allowed is deemed illegal. It's not quite that strict, project managers can modernize just within certain limits (e.g., you can't just host on any cloud, but must be on a government approved cloud service). However, I have worked in some of those environments where programmers refused to change, admittedly due to their unwillingness to learn despite their customer wanting the change. Even at organizations with large risk-adverse datasets, there's a desire to change but an inability to execute. The VA for example, has struggled for decades to modernize their system despite sinking millions and millions of dollars into it. >If it's running now, it'll most likely continue to run for the next 20 years of software and hardware updates. This is fine if the system is expected to remain static. Problems often arise when hardware or software are expected to change and still run the same legacy code.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > Problems often arise when hardware or software are expected to change and still run the same legacy code. One of the selling points of IBM mainframes is the pretty flawless backwards compatibility. I wouldn't be surprised if you could run unmodified binaries compiled for the 360 model 20 on a z15.
commandlinefan 6y ago
I keep reading that COBOL skills are "in demand", but I keep not seeing evidence of it in terms of actual salaries. Machine learning is actually in demand - it pays well.
- bumby 6y ago
  I believe much of the salary is an effect on the institutions that need the programmers. Governments are often the organizations needing COBOL programmers, but government salaries are not commensurate with the tech industry (often due to bureaucratic limits), especially when compared to the consumer tech industry. In that context, pay caps out at around $170k no matter how in demand the skill is