I don't consider COBOL to be a good indicator of programming quality. Although frankly, I will say that about most software. Generally products stick around not

I don't consider COBOL to be a good indicator of programming quality. Although frankly, I will say that about most software. Generally products stick around not because they're good but because replacing them would be too costly. And generally products get in not because they're good but because they're decent and get lucky with timing. I saw another HN post today about Excel. I think Excel is on the better end of the software spectrum. Still, the main reasons why we don't yet have "Excel++ but for real better" everywhere is simply because developing such a thing and then getting the traction for it would be infeasible. I will once again say that I don't consider COBOL remotely impressive for still underlying many important computer systems. The computer systems are important because of their purpose, and implementation is always a conflict with purpose.