> (Not sure if your last sentence was a joke meant to undermine your argument preceding it? Maybe by mainframe though you're referring to servers.) No. It's re

> (Not sure if your last sentence was a joke meant to undermine your argument preceding it? Maybe by mainframe though you're referring to servers.) No. It's reality. Mainframes are here to stay. IBM continues to develop and sell plenty of mainframes. Several other manufacturers do as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Z#IBM_z16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Z#IBM_z16 Where I work has applications dating back decades with complex data analysis algorithms developed by very smart people. Strict backwards-compatibility is critical. We have mainframes. There are many other reasons to run mainframes. For example, mainframes offer pretty incredible features with regards to redundancy, and making everything hot-swappable in case of failure without interrupting workloads. That's especially useful in places like the financial industry. There, a single failure or error can cost much more than a mainframe. They're a niche, but a big enough one to support a multi-billion dollar business. It shrunk for many years, but it's currently even growing.