Live data from Hacker News

COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

gcn.com

11–20 of 116 posts

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#11
post #7

I'm pretty sure I'm thinking about it right. How much COBOL code can run on a regular Ubuntu machine? What's the package manager for OSS packages? What test frameworks are in common use? You know you're in trouble when "There's a syntax file for VSCode." is the height of your modernity.

I assume GnuCOBOL can run on GNU/Linux.

https://gnucobol.sourceforge.io/

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#12

COBOL is easy. JCL is the hard part.

COBOL is good for dealing with money because it was built with the sort of numeric types required as a natural part of the language. Popular programming languages treat them as an afterthought and provide awkward library functions, if they have anything at all.

C# has Decimal built in. Enough precision for any money-related calculation.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#13
COBOL was actually in the CS curriculum for my university, a fact that several of my friends brought up when the 'COVID is prompting a real need for COBOL programmers in light of the need to change benefits rules and unemployment!' stories were a regular feature on the nightly news.

'You should do it, man!' Yeah, sure. I'd already suffered through the liquidation of my entire department in 2018, the prospect of the heat around COBOL dying down and facing that once again with the additional stain of 'oh, what've you been doing? Cool, popular JS frameworks? No, COBOL? Pass.' on my CV during my next round of interviews didn't seem at all appealing.

That mentality should set the expectation for anyone looking into a COBOL job. It's not just this job, it's the next one.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#14
post #6

People that have not been exposed to legacy industries (banking, insurance, etc) would simply not believe how many of these large/huge companies run the majority of their business on an IBM mainframe running COBOL code. I've seen it firsthand and I didn't believe it. For them, it just works.

One of the slides by some IBM consultants presenting at the financial firm I used to work stated "Western Civilization runs on the mainframe." Considering how much banks still use mainframes, this is probably true.

I recently listened to a podcast episode which featured a gentleman who teaches mainframe related things at a university in the US and is deeply involved with the Open Mainframe Project. His statistic was 95% of financial transactions touch a mainframe somewhere along the way.

From what I know, considering it's not "just" banks but pretty much any long running financial business (IE insurance companies), I believe it's one of the most used but least talked about technologies out there.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#16

I have never written cobol, but I wonder if there is a market for a COBOL transpiler to something like C#/Java/typescript, or even python would be a viable business?

I suspect it's not the language itself but the systems already in place. Transpiling to something else wouldn't help.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#17
As someone who learned COBOL in British college in the late 1980's, I can confirm that the language was/is quite readable and accessible. I still have the COBOL textbook from back then; Andrew Parkin, COBOL For Students, second edition, ISBN 0-7131-3477-1

I distinctly remember at the time really enjoying learning to code in it - it spoke to my logical-thinking (but quite young) brain a lot.

However, after college, for whatever reason I didn't use that COBOL knowledge at all. If only I knew then what I know today - that COBOL is still somewhat in demand and that if only I kept in with it over the years, I could quite probably have made quite a good living from it.

Young me was quite naive and silly ;)

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#18
post #6

People that have not been exposed to legacy industries (banking, insurance, etc) would simply not believe how many of these large/huge companies run the majority of their business on an IBM mainframe running COBOL code. I've seen it firsthand and I didn't believe it. For them, it just works.

I would argue that, despite the design failures, more of modern society runs on JavaScript. I know that it is hard to accept, but a crappy piece of ten year old JS with JQuery submitting a basic XHR request to a server to book a seat on an airplane or at a show matters just as much as your insurance operation that squeezes out a fraction of a point of return for an insurance package.

We live in a world where many of the software languages we use really do matter. If all Ruby interpreters disappeared overnight it would cause global havoc. Real panic. Trillions of dollars of damage.

But because we've learned to rely on these languages continued existence we can undervalue any one of them, including COBOL. I don't because I've thought about it and concluded that we're essentially building on things akin to writing or mathematics. Our building blocks are vital, even if they're easy to take for granted.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#20

I have never written cobol, but I wonder if there is a market for a COBOL transpiler to something like C#/Java/typescript, or even python would be a viable business?

The US DoD recently migrated some of their COBOL systems to AWS GovCloud. One of the steps was automated translation of COBOL to Java.

https://tsri.com/news-blog/u-s-department-of-defense-mainfra...

Post reply on HN