You changed a COBOL argument to a stock performance argument. I'm up over 200% in Tesla and over 100% in oh god so-much-COBOL Mastercard. Cars are not COBOL an

You changed a COBOL argument to a stock performance argument. I'm up over 200% in Tesla and over 100% in oh god so-much-COBOL Mastercard. Cars are not COBOL and massive interconnected financial networks. How many Tesla crashes have been attributed to failures in self-driving. Way more than failed wire transfers, pension payments, bond issuances, dividend payments, cleared stock transactions, etc. Square is not a money center bank nor a major broker-dealer and they never will be. Their business is point-of-sale not international FX, issuing securities, managing trillions in pensions, etc. How much of the global financial flow does Square have? A rounding error. The argument is now about the merits of Square vs Citibank, saying Square is bad, or that they won't grow (I own it too). The author's point in the article is the this bullet proof code, while very out of fashion, is durable and has been proven over time so it is likely to be around for a long time still. (Lindy Effect [1]) EDIT: Who is you broker? One of the fancy new mobile apps like Robinhood (I use 'em too). Guess what? They've cleared trades through APEX, an old-school firm likely with COBOL inside, until recently. Turns out brokerage ops are challenging as Robinhood found out at exactly the wrong time [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect [2] https://www.fa-mag.com/news/the-robinhood-outage-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-taking-your-tech-in-house-54430.html https://www.fa-mag.com/news/the-robinhood-outage-is-a-cautio...