4 ms·
The problem is that if you convert your COBOL code to the language du jour (LDJ), you've only kicked the can down the road. You will always have to keep some CO
by GnarfGnarf 6y ago
The problem is that if you convert your COBOL code to the language du jour (LDJ), you've only kicked the can down the road. You will always have to keep some COBOL experts on staff (the conversion is never finished), plus the new LDJ experts.
In ten or twenty years, LDJ will be obsolete, now you have to convert to LDJ2. Now you have COBOL programmers on staff, plus LDJ programmers, plus LDJ2 programmers. No one wants to be on the obsolete teams, your salary budget bloats, and you have more Babel.
If there's always going to be something better, and you're always going to be fragmented, why not stay with just the one single obsolete technology?
- tuatoru 6y agoTo me the appropriate language for a re-write of (software written in) COBOL is SQL. Edit: clarification in parentheses.
- cogman10 6y agoThis is one of my great fears as a software maintainer. It seems almost impossible for any product to ever fully shed itself of a technology. Primarily because while the initial work may yield benefits that management loves, they never prioritize finishing the job as some feature always takes priority. And now you have 2 problems. You have half your product in one language/tech, and another dark corner in another tech. Your build is more complex and your product more fragile.