Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

Plenty of folks know COBOL - the problem is you need to entice someone YOUNG to learn it, which basically means overpaying them. If I'm an 18-year-old why would I focus on learning a programming language that puts me in a job with 0 chance of advancement? Sure I'm irreplaceable to the company, but I've also only got a handful of other places I could go if they treat me poorly or sunset their mainframe.

Re: Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

#5

Post by jalk » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

There seems to be plenty of cobol transpilers - anybody know why they can’t use those. Immediate thought was it’s just beating on the dead Watson horse.

Re: Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

#6

Post by dun44 » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

Regarding IBM's use of technology widely known for hallucinating to translate sensitive source code: it sounds weird you think the primary objective here is to deliver something that properly translates from one language to another. But it is not - the primary objective is to get money from customers and investors. Delivering something that works is secondary, and honestly, optional.

Many things in IT start making a whole lot more sense once you reexamine your beliefs about their purpose.

Re: Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

#7

Post by SillyUsername » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

discmonkey wrote: post #3

Classic misunderstanding of programming languages. The only thing stopping cobol from being "known" is these companies paying for it.

Chicken and egg, companies stop paying, say no devs, devs not interested as no companies paying for it. Tell me that COBOL to Java porting pays $150K p/a and I'll be happy to take the job, at least for a year or 3.

Re: Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

#8

Post by tobyjsullivan » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 5:26 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #4

Plenty of folks know COBOL - the problem is you need to entice someone YOUNG to learn it, which basically means overpaying them. If I'm an 18-year-old why would I focus on learning a programming language that puts me in a job with 0 chance of advancement? Sure I'm irreplaceable to the company, but I've also only got a handful of other places I could go if they treat me poorly or sunset their mainframe.

I’d be curious to know how we’re defining “overpaying” here. These companies have effectively accrued 50+ years of technical debt (they could have migrated off COBOL decades ago). Meanwhile, based on my limited experience with these industries, I’d be surprised if they even offer market rates to new hires.

Re: Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

#9

Post by elteto » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

These systems have not been running untouched for 60 years. Regulatory environments change almost constantly and the code has to be updated accordingly. I don’t personally know anyone writing COBOL but I’m certain there’s plenty of people doing it. And to change the code you have to know it. So there’s really no 60 year old code that no one knows anymore.

Also, at this point, if you are running on a dead platform and language and you know it, and haven’t addressed it, then it’s on you. I’ve been seeing these COBOL articles since the 2000s I believe.

Re: Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

#10

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

The flawed "economic analysis" in this article is so commonly brought out, but at this point we should just call it what it is: lying.

There is no "shortage of COBOL programmers." Businesses are simply choosing what they will pay, and the market is responding appropriately. And this is also not just a case of naively shouting "duh, just pay them more" for a market that can't bear the increase in costs (i.e. some industries can only survive if there are available low cost workers - most of us aren't willing to pay $40 for a fast food burger, for example. Whether those industries should be around if they can only survive on low cost labor is another story...) It's not exactly like the financial world is scrounging for money. Businesses can either choose to pay their CEOs a hundred million or so, or they can choose to spread some of that money to COBOL programmers. The choice is theirs, but there is no "shortage".