Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

www-01.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#71

Post by sidpatil »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #70
chasil wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you get all this stuff with a hobbiest license and a full media kit? Doesn't macro32 on alpha or itanium run old VAX binaries transparently? Why keep the antiques? Even SimH seems a better option (assuming the licenses work). http://www.openvmshobbyist.com/news.php

You could, except that they stopped the hobbiest program sadly.

VMS Software, the newest maintainers of OpenVMS, have continued the hobbyist program. https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#72

Post by jussij »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #61
ChuckMcM wrote: post #37

One of the VAX computers I rescued from disposal at the height of the Y2K impending apocolypse came with licenses (PAKs for those in the know) for DEC COBOL, DEC RDBMS, and DEC FORMS. These three applications formed the backbone of payroll processing for the company that was tossing the VAX. This machine, processed the payroll for a bit over 5,000 employees on a "clustered" machine that had a combined total of 512MB…

> I can assure you that "Quickbook Payroll" would not be able to handle this on a similarly resourced x86 machine. Not even close. Why? I've been into x86 databases since the Windows NT days and 5000 doesn't seem an impressive number to me.

The OP's comment was conditional: on a similarly resourced x86 machine.

Windows, let alone Quickbooks is not going to run very well on a machine with just 512MB of RAM.

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#73

Post by aksss »

busterarm wrote: post #16
ajross wrote: post #9

I'm just imagining the level of jaw dropping and brain exploding that would have gone on had that same headline been published in 1998. Obviously at this point almost three decades into the internet era no one really cares. We all know that "somewhere" old COBOL code is running, but in practice the companies managing the bulk of data for society didn't even exist before Y2K. Everyone with unmaintainable COBOL has lon…

> Everyone with unmaintainable COBOL has long since migrated to really bad Java code instead. Sadly this is entirely untrue. What's happening in practice is they're still running COBOL and they're paying some woefully underpaid and underappreciated developers to write PHP ("Zend Core") for System-i. This allows companies to run web applications on these aging systems.

Plenty of jobs for remote COBOL devs in the 120-160k range, still. I wouldn’t call “live-where-you-want” at 150k/year woefully underpaid. That affords a great living in a lot of America. ‘Specially if you take two.

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#74

Post by ineedasername »

space_ghost wrote: post #68
ChuckMcM wrote: post #37

One of the VAX computers I rescued from disposal at the height of the Y2K impending apocolypse came with licenses (PAKs for those in the know) for DEC COBOL, DEC RDBMS, and DEC FORMS. These three applications formed the backbone of payroll processing for the company that was tossing the VAX. This machine, processed the payroll for a bit over 5,000 employees on a "clustered" machine that had a combined total of 512MB…

What's so burdensome about payroll processing? It seems straightforward enough.

It's really not that simple, because payroll processing isn't just the part where an amount of money is sent to a bank account. It's tied up in a lot of complexities like accrued time off, time off used during the pay period, which pool of time it came from, potential for comp time or overtime, etc. That's not even getting into benefits like payroll deductions for health insurance, the choices of different insurance types, performance bonuses, annual cost of living increases... There are a ton of variables involved, this doesn't scratch the surface.

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#75

Post by ChuckMcM »

sidpatil wrote: post #71
ChuckMcM wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, except that they stopped the hobbiest program sadly.

VMS Software, the newest maintainers of OpenVMS, have continued the hobbyist program. https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/

Except this bit: Please note that in accordance with the license agreement between VMS Software Inc. and HPE, VMS Software Inc. are not able to distribute VAX licenses.

Since I've got actual Vaxen it doesn't help.

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#77

Post by pabs3 »

msgilligan wrote: post #3

I expected it to be Open Source, but it is not. I had a few jobs where I programmed in COBOL when I was in college. Its probably just as well that it's not Open Source, because I was tempted to install it just for fun.

GnuCOBOL is open source though:

https://gnucobol.sourceforge.io/

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#78

Post by ineedasername »

aparsons wrote: post #12

COBOL will always have a soft spot in my heart as the first programming language I learned. I did not use it much - 2 years max - but when reading COBOL it was really clear that there were some programmers who just saw code differently - in an abstract, artistic sense. It was the ultimate litmus test. COBOL is really easy to write spaghetti code with - perhaps even the default. But some of these programmers (not incl…

some programmers who just saw code differently - in an abstract, artistic

Yes, some people like this are absolute geniuses.... And also result in code that's incredibly difficult to maintain, especially when it wasn't well documented or documentation binders have been sitting in boxes at some off-site cold storage for 25 years.

For anything that isn't pushing the boundaries of computing, I'd much prefer a few experts to a single genius.

If you find yourself with a true genius, you need to realize that they are not replaceable and you cannot rely on them alone, doing their work as usual. To harness genius like that, you need to build a structured team around them, not try to fit them into an existing structure.

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#79

Post by fnord77 »

kazinator wrote: post #8

> Memory requirements are as follows: > Minimum 250 MB for product packages > Minimum 2 GB of hard drive space for paging > Minimum 512 MB for temporary files > Minimum 2 GB RAM, with 4 GB more optimal Ouch; this ain't your grandpa's lean and mean Cobol.

probably includes a hidden z/os emulator

Re: IBM COBOL for Linux on x86

#80

Post by phs318u »

ajross wrote: post #9

I'm just imagining the level of jaw dropping and brain exploding that would have gone on had that same headline been published in 1998. Obviously at this point almost three decades into the internet era no one really cares. We all know that "somewhere" old COBOL code is running, but in practice the companies managing the bulk of data for society didn't even exist before Y2K. Everyone with unmaintainable COBOL has lon…

> We all know that "somewhere" old COBOL code is running, but in practice the companies managing the bulk of data for society didn't even exist before Y2K. Everyone with unmaintainable COBOL has long since migrated to really bad Java code instead.

Not quite. I'd suggest that there are still many trillions of dollars worth of people's money still managed in COBOL on mainframe core banking systems. Certainly the "big 4" banks in Australia all still have such systems in production (though they also have java systems)

Disclosure: I have worked for a few banks.

Post reply on HN