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

COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

gcn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#41

Post by msla »

RobotToaster wrote: post #11
moomin wrote: 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/

GnuCOBOL not only runs on Linux, it's pretty far along

https://gnucobol.sourceforge.io/faq/index.html

> GnuCOBOL implements a substantial part of the COBOL 85, COBOL 2002, COBOL 2014 and upcoming COBOL 202x standards, as well as many extensions from existing COBOL compilers.

It's also in the Ubuntu package repos, from a quick check.

The GCC Cobol aspirant recently gained compliance with Cobol-85

https://lwn.net/Articles/922951/

There is active Free Software development on Cobol tools.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#42

Post by msla »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #31
VulgarExigency wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several programming languages with package managers that work better than NPM. Not having one is not a positive no matter how you try to spin it.

What exactly would you package manage if you had a package manager for COBOL? You will never get paid to work on any COBOL code that isn't proprietary, and sealed with the blood of innocent victims. You are not going to be installing the latest hot js framework on a mainframe .

> You are not going to be installing the latest hot js framework on a mainframe.

I think IBM would disagree with you, given how much they've pushed Linux (and, therefore, Linux web servers running Node and kin) on their mainframes. You won't be installing much of anything like that on a midrange system, but Linux on Z is pretty well established.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#43

Post by JohnFen »

BlandDuck wrote: post #36

I have seen the COBOL issue come up a number of times, and I just don't get it. Am I thinking about this wrong? COBOL seems to be a straightforward language by modern standards. Any programmer with experience with imperative languages should be able to pick it up. Learning the language itself cannot be a real barrier. The barrier seems to be the enormous amount of legacy code that has to be digested and understood. B…

You're not thinking wrong. COBOL is, compared to modern languages, very straightforward. It's also very different, though, and so it can feel alien to programmers who only know the new stuff.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#44

Post by kjs3 »

ptero wrote: post #24
ElfinTrousers wrote: post #3

Even after a 44% bump, the salaries for COBOL positions aren't impressive compared to other specialties. And that's before the quality-of-life question.

The quality of life may not be bad at all. I have a relative who maintains old code for a public utility (I think most of it is PL/1). While the salary is not FAANG-like it is OK and the job security and the sane 9-5 schedule with the opportunity to work remotely are pretty big benefits for someone on the wrong side of 60. My 2c.

Yeah...I know quite a few Cobol programmers. They make good, not extravagant, money. But they also have low job stress, no 'crunch mode'. Production changes are very carefully considered and controlled because of the consequences of botching one. No 'move fast and break things'. They're home with the family at a reasonable time every day. So it's a tradeoff, and a good one for many people.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#45

Post by JohnFen »

LeonenTheDK wrote: post #14
chocolatelab82 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not just financial businesses. For instance, I worked on a product also used by one of the largest package shipping companies. A couple of their key systems consisted of mainframes running COBOL code.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#46

Post by msla »

bitwize wrote: post #10
moomin wrote: 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.

> How much COBOL code can run on a regular Ubuntu machine? All of it. GNU Cobol exists, as do proprietary solutions from companies like Micro Focus that target the JVM and .NET (which is what you're looking for for a real COBOL solution). But why is it so important to run COBOL on Ubuntu? If you need Linux, create a Linux LPAR on your mainframe. > What's the package manager for OSS packages? COBOL code runs Western c…

It's the same problem z/OS has: There's no hobbyist community so it remains obscure. Yes, you can run 1980s-era System/370 software under Hercules, but IBM keeps anything remotely modern under lock and key even though you'd think it would benefit IBM to have people indoctrinate themselves into the Blue Worldview.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#48

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

msla wrote: post #42
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly would you package manage if you had a package manager for COBOL? You will never get paid to work on any COBOL code that isn't proprietary, and sealed with the blood of innocent victims. You are not going to be installing the latest hot js framework on a mainframe .

> You are not going to be installing the latest hot js framework on a mainframe. I think IBM would disagree with you, given how much they've pushed Linux (and, therefore, Linux web servers running Node and kin) on their mainframes. You won't be installing much of anything like that on a midrange system, but Linux on Z is pretty well established.

Doesn't that depend on the client company, rather than IBM? I'm going with what I know from the one (big,financial) corp that I worked in with COBOL on mainframes; there, we didn't use linux at all.

Anyway those environments are downright sclerotic (the worst thing about working with COBOL that nobody mentions). They didn't even let me install Firefox on my work laptop. They had people doing web dev, obviously, but the mainframe teams were more, let's say, conservative.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#49

Post by rbanffy »

JohnFen wrote: post #43
BlandDuck wrote: post #36

I have seen the COBOL issue come up a number of times, and I just don't get it. Am I thinking about this wrong? COBOL seems to be a straightforward language by modern standards. Any programmer with experience with imperative languages should be able to pick it up. Learning the language itself cannot be a real barrier. The barrier seems to be the enormous amount of legacy code that has to be digested and understood. B…

You're not thinking wrong. COBOL is, compared to modern languages, very straightforward. It's also very different, though, and so it can feel alien to programmers who only know the new stuff.

No direct experience with either, but, from what I understand, a COBOL application written to run in CICS looks a lot like a serverless app, with the difference that the company owns the multi-million dollar server.

Re: COBOL: Thinking about it wrong

#50

Post by jimt1234 »

My mother built her career on COBOL from the mid-70s to the late-90s. She's retired now, but still talks about what a great language it is. She tried learning Java in the late-90s, toward the end of her career, but hated it. "What's an object? Everything? Everything is an object? That's just dumb." LOL

And yeah, she still gets offers for consulting work, but she wants no part of it. She's done working.

Post reply on HN