Modernizing the Common Language - COBOL 347
Frumious Wombat writes "Over at the Register Developers section, they are quoting the head of research for Ovum Consulting on the continuing dominance of COBOL in certain business applications. The antique language accounted for 75% of all business transactions last year, and some 90% of financial transactions. For all the time spent arguing the merits of Ruby vs. C#, should the community spend more time building tools to make COBOL livable? The article goes into what it terms 'legacy modernization', and lays out some details on how to go about it. From the article: 'The first stage in the legacy modernization process is to understand the business value embodied within legacy systems. This means that developers must give business domain experts (business analysts) access to the legacy, using tools that help them find their way around it at the business level. Some awareness of, say, COBOL and of the legacy architectures will be helpful but we aren't talking about programmers rooting around in code - modern tools can automate much of this analysis for staff working at a higher level.'"
Easy Solution (Score:4, Funny)
Why not just rewrite it in PHP. Another 30 years of guaranteed fat support contracts. Always think of your potential pay-packet.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:5, Funny)
This will go on for years until the executives give up and hire an outside consultant who will do the whole thing in Java. It will be bloated and inefficient, and the UI will be ugly. People will begin dreaming about rewriting it. Eventually, someone will suggest re-writing the whole thing in PHP...
Re:Easy Solution (Score:4, Funny)
"While the FOSS zealots are flaming each other a MS partner shows up and sells them a set of cut rate licenses and thells them how easy it is to develop in VB
The offshoring company still doesn't get it so mgt decides to reel the project back in. They hire a hogshead of onshore VB programmers who kind of sort of get it to work, though it still relies on the legacy system to do the heavy lifting. The project is deemed a success, and goes into a (very expensive) maintnenence mode. The managers spruce up thier resumes and bail.
Meanwhile, in the basement grandpa/ma is sitting in a rocker whittling a new toothpick and keeping the legacy system running. Day by day grandpa/ma marks off the days to retirement after which all hell will break loose. Unless you hire gramps back as a consultant at 3x previous salary".
There, hope this helps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not really. Compile-time type checking catches a certain amount of absent-mindedness and serves as a bit of extra documentation, no more. What Java really does is force people to do things the long, simple, stupid way instead of the clever way. Brian Kernighan wrote, "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smar
Re:Easy Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
VB is nice for the small things or even for the unambitious GUI layer of something larger, but it is just not suited for long-life projects - it introduces too much ugliness too early into the product life and maintenance usually makes it even uglier.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
But it is modern! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fujitsu COBOL and NetCOBOL for
Micro Focus Net Express [microfocus.com]
Both of those are rather expensive, and I've not seen any open-source ones yet. I thought it would be fun to write a COBOL compiler for
Re: (Score:2)
But the code is designed to
yes COBOL and ADA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OO Cobol since 1989! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A starting point might be this JavaCC grammar for COBOL [blogs.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe WebSphere does this. Supposedly you can pump COBOL data into EJB applications.
see:
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/data/ims/imsjava/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be enough to annoy many people by itself. Additionally, by capitalizing
COBOL lives because it's clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, it makes sense.
You don't have to develop corporate variable naming standards, coding standards, and all that, because the language makes it happen automatically.
You can take a fresh wet behind the ears kid, give him the code, and he can figure out what's going on without any significant trouble, because it happens in order, there is none of this fancy renaming variables on the fly and obfuscating code with magic numbers stuff that is all the rage in C++, Java, and other "modern" languages.
You want to add 2 and 2? Great, you get 4, which is what the accountants want. You can't program 2+2 to equal 27 like you can in C++. One operation does one thing, does it well and accurately, and moves on.
Business only has one real question: "How much money did I make last year?" COBOL provides all the tools to answer it.
That is why COBOL lives, and always will.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly. You have some points, but one of the greatest in COBOL's favour is it's pervasivness.
A few years ago I was working at a job where we were doing everything in a 4th Generation Language. We got outsourced (thanks to a CIO who just popped in for a couple years to pad his resumee) to a company which had an integrated product written entirely in COBOL. (Of course they ran their code on an HP platform, which by now has been retired and HP support will soon, also end. COBOL survives because people st
it's not "clear" (Score:2)
Well, if you use COBOL to code your web frontends, graphics, analytics, etc., the answer to that question will be near zero.
In order to make money these days, you need to do more than can humanly be done in COBOL.
there is none of this fancy renaming variables on the fly and obfuscating code with magic numbers stuff that is all the rage in C++, Java, and other "modern" languages.
C++ and Java
Re:COBOL lives because it's clear (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. I once was that kid. It is much harder than you imagine. Why?
1) Sphaghetti code. Lots and lots of sphaghetti code. COBOL, despite improvements, is still not much more structured than assembly. It was doing maint. programming in COBOL that I vowed in all future development to try to be kind to the maint. programmer.
2) The kid still has to learn the problem domain. I do not understand the mind set where a person says "I don't need to know the busness, just let me code it". With out the background knowledge you never know if what you are doing is right, reasonable, solves a domain problem or if it over laps another part of the problem domain so that code can be shared. In fact, learning the problem you are solving is the hardest part.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As for colleges, our local community college has a two year program in C++/VB/COBOL/RPG that fits the needs of our local employers pretty well.
C++ for dummies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think people didn't know how to program in the past? Read about how programmers used to optimize the placement of their code on drum storage to take into account the latency o
Your definition of clarity is unclear (Score:2)
You've got me scratching my head with that one. I have no idea how to "obfuscate code with magic numbers". As for "renaming variables" are you referring to the fact that modern languages allow you to declare variables with limited scope? (I seem to dimly recall that COBOL variables always have program scope, but it's been a couple of decad
COBOL Fits Business Transaction App Domain (Score:2)
Uh, dude, like 2 + 2 = 22. (Score:2)
Dude, like, everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 22:
Re: (Score:2)
SUBTRACT TOTAL-EXPENSES FROM GROSS-SALES GIVING NET-PROFIT.
is much more clear than:
SUBTRACT TE FROM GS GIVING NP
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever chased an else'less IF or a Case where someone forgot to put a "break" in C ?
Ever chased a very subtle bug in C++ where some moron overloaded the wrong operator?
Ever chased an End statement in Pascal where a ; was optional?
Ever chased a ... in any language?
The bottom line is this. Every language has its pluses and minuses. COBAL was designed as a language to handle business operations. It does it well, it does it faithfully and its Proven, Tested, Validated an most of all Trusted (PTVT).
Ask K
Ooh, I'm quivering in my rocker (Score:2)
Fortran updated each decade (Score:3, Informative)
(I skipped the 80s too.)
Like all the legacy languages it acquired all the new fad constructs. Still pretty conscise for formulas and array operations.
Key Insight (Score:3, Insightful)
If only such decisions could be realized in today's business setting. Unfortunately, updating/migrating legacy systems (even mission-critical ones!) seems to be the assigned task for interns, new hires fresh out of university, and contract programmers in India.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, let's be honest. Most mid and senior level people prefer to work on new systems versus mucking with a crufty legacy COBOL system. I know that if my job suddenly became COBOL legacy maintenance 100% I would be pounding the pavement looking for a new job, unless they also rented a Terex dumptruck, filled the bucket with $100 bills and dumped it out on my front lawn.
I don't mind taking a gander at a COBOL program once in a while, but I don't want to make a career of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Rewrite != Inefficient (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, there's many benefits to rewriting. It allows for proper documentation to be created (design diagrams, use cases, requirements documents) if it was missing. It allows for new technologies to be considered, and to plan for another 30 years of operation. If the software was created using a robust process, the design diagrams, use cases and requirements documents are already written. That's the hard part; any coder worth his salt should be able to exactly duplicate the application from those artifacts.
I don't think the risk is as bad as business types claim it to be. Is it really any more of a risk to "Rip and Replace" when it's at least as likely that either the ancient hardware that the application runs on fails without replacements being available, or that the one person in the entire company who actually knows all the stuff that should be written down in the non-existent documentation retires, and there's no replacement available? The article mentions in 2 of the 3 legacy reclamation techniques that a domain expert would be required. The fact that many of the domain experts are going to be or have already retired should be additional incentive to do the "Rip and Replace" while they're still available.
mandelbr0t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My rule of thumb: If you can hack something in Perl in a week (or few) to replace a legacy app, go for it. If it takes longer, spend your time doing something more useful. If it's something that requires a -team- of folks working for a few months... then you better quit before you start (if old system works---just leave it alone).
Re:Rewrite != Inefficient (sometimes) (Score:2)
Unfortunately at some point we will have to rewrite it in PHP. Before I got to know my way round the system I thought this was a great idea as I am a pretty good PHP programmer and prefer it to ASP. Now I have realised what a huge and difficult job this is going to be (think in man years rather than hours) I am not so keen. Especially as I will probably be entitled to a profit share by the time we do it and ob
Re:Rewrite != Inefficient (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is why rewrite something that works fine already. These COBOL applications work well now, some do have significant documentation, and believe it or not some (not many) have been rewritten (or just developed) recently.
Before you think I am clueless ponder this.
COBOL has a proven track record of over 40 years. Over that time is has matured and became very stable. It is reliable and quick.
Some COBOL Applications handle massive amounts of data that many servers would choke on. (Admittedly this is mostly due to the hardware architecture.) I personally wrote a program that would process over 35GB daily in about 10minutes. How many servers can process that amount of information? How many languages would you trust to deal with that quantity of information? Think of how much even the smallest memory leak in a language would be compounded with the sheer volume of data that we are talking about.
The Y2K crisis happened because programmers wrote programs that far exceeded the length of time they were initially expected to be used. 20 years ago, programmers used only 2 bytes for the year because they a) did not expect the program to be around in 2000, and b) memory and storage space required a premium price. For the most part it wasn't because they were bad programmer, they tried to be efficient programmers and the program lasted far better than they ever thought it would. Now a neophyte thinks it is a requirement to rewrite any program just because it is old(over 3 years). If you code haphazardly and do not think about future maintenance you may be forced to rewrite old code, but if you code with foresight you make the underly structure easy to maintain and upgrade.
The Y2K crisis also did one other thing. It made people re-evaluate their current needs and see if they were being met. The people who stayed with COBOL did so consciously. They made the decison that COBOL was fulfilling their needs or the programs would have been ported then (time permitting of course)
And yes, there is even new development with COBOL. The program I mentioned above with the 35GB of data was brand new and written in 2002. It processes returned billing information to AT&T from the LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) daily.
Now, I know someone is going to say that I am a biased old fart, but I am in my 30's, and the specific program I mentioned was my last COBOL program I wrote before becoming a Web Developer. The group I was with is still working with COBOL, but I moved on because even though it works well, I find writing COBOL too easy and monotonous. But the reliability, stability, and 40+ years of applications developed for it are why COBOL is still around and why it will still be around for a long time to come.
Re: (Score:2)
> about 10minutes. How many servers can process that amount of information?
That is not a language-domain problem. That is a hardware issue -- you require disks able to spool 60 megabytes per second just to be able to handle that... so you're looking at a server with at least 20 disks and multiple buses. Probably fcal with multiple pathing, and RAID-side battery-backed cache.
Incidentally, I use gmail for precisely the same architectur
Re: (Score:2)
Because that chunk of prose that your friend threw away didn't cost $40M to create. You might be correct that it will cost more to fix the $40M codebase than it would to start from scratch, but the managers who have to make that decision have a really hard time telling their managers that the old codebase has n
Re:Rewrite != Not easy (Score:2)
If the software was created using a robust process, the design diagrams, use cases and requirements documents are already written. That's the hard part; any coder worth his salt should be able to exactly duplicate the application from those artifacts.
You make it sound so easy! How many times have you actually done it?
I ask this because I have done it, several times. Each time, I knew exactly the logic of the processes, knew all the applicable algorithms, and had all the documentation and flow chart
hmmm (Score:2)
That sounds less like just plain COBOL, and more like a cabal.
The Tao of Programming (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, I guess you must be a COBOL programmer, since you seem to like TYPING IN ALL CAPS.
Anyway, the appropriate acronymical expansion of COBOL is 'Confused Oriental Bean-cOunting Langauge.'
Oh, BTW, how's the fingers? Stubs yet?
Re:From my experience (Score:5, Funny)
can't replace the existing 200 billion lines of code.
Sure you can. A 20 line Perl script would probably work just as well.
And you can't maintain 200 billion lines of COBOL, either.
But seriously, COBOL is so verbose that the 200 billion lines of COBOL could probably be replaced by 100 million lines of C++ or Java. And it would be more maintainable. COBOL exists to keep programmers employed; consider what it provides for the programmer:
MULTIPLY HOURL-WAGE-IN-CENTS TIMES HOURS-LOGGED-FOR-THIS-EMPLOYEE-ONLY-NOT-INCLUDING
ADD TEMPORARY-SALARY-FOR-THIS-WEEK TO ONE-TIME-BONUS-FOR-SALARIED-EMPLOYEES-NOT-RECEIVI
MOVE BY NAME TMP-EMPLOYEE-SALARY-CALCULATION-WORKSHEET-STRUCTU
But I jest, of course. The truth is, most businesses are so afraid of moving away from COBOL that they'd rather continue to shell out premium salaries than take the risk of a failed migration. Kind of like a lot of Windows users - they'd like to try Linux, but are afraid of change. Well, I suppose you get what you deserve.
COBOL is so old... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
COBOL, if you didn't know, means COmmon Business-Oriented Language and was originally developed by a group of large businesses that wanted to make applications easy to understand an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still being taught today. It goes well with our local furniture plants who run tons of apps on AS/400 systems.
Re: (Score:2)
My mom is in her 50's, and for about a decade she wrote COBOL for a book distribution company. So she was barely even middle-aged when this was going on. She definitely didn't start in the 1950's. Some of the guys she worked with were getting up there in years, but definitely not all of them. And she was really at the median -- at least half of the programming force at this company was actually YOUNGER than her. A few were mid-20's.
COBOL is good at hiding in the dark corners of basements and mainframe roo
Two Points (Score:5, Insightful)
Two, the reason COBOL is so widespread in financial institutions has nothing to do with business sense and everything with business mind. It is "readable" to a business dude with zero computing experience. Something like "ADD PROFITMARGIN TO PRICE" just makes these people feel more at easy than "$price+=$p_margin".
many legacy FORTRAN codes too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't learn FORTRAN, it was "out" when I studied. But I still learned COBOL. Please, let it die a quick and horrible death. Mostly quick would be very welcome.
A Modest Solution (Score:3, Funny)
Now coders can start migrating away from Cobol without the hassle of rewriting entire programs. They can do it one line at a time, as they get to it.
Now if we could just merge Java, & Perl in there you'd really have something.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a job for Parrot [parrotcode.org]!
Note: I'm kidding... sort of.
Easy tasks (Score:5, Insightful)
This simply underlines the fact that there's a huge workload of easy, routine transactions that need to be done.
In terms of total complexity, the financial world is probably something like Excel 20%, C# 15%, Java 30%, C++ 30%, other 5%.
But in terms of transactions, I can well believe it's COBOL 70%, REXX/VB/4GLs 25%, other 5%.
Modelling a CDO *is* hard, and you don't do it in COBOL. Creating a visual system to monitor liquidity *is* hard and you don't do it in COBOL. 'Transactions' pure and simple are not hard... you can do them in COBOL... they're easy to maintain because changes are of the form 'deduct 5% if broker_country_of_incorporation = finland'... and they're also a darn silly way to measure the relevance of a language.
Lords of COBOL... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the community? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, does this mean that the "community" should help? Why should *I* build such tools, why should *you*? That's the problem of the financial institutes, and they are willing to pay large sums to get their code maintained and modernized in COBOL. And if they want to have a nice development tool, so they have to pay for it (probably indirect by paying a software development enterprise, which creates and then uses such a tool).
Nothing but geeky navel-gazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
No business person in their right mind would rewrite all their COBOL code into C or Java just for the sake of modernization. That would be foolish and stupid, and they would deserve to be fired from their jobs. Everything works, why change it. Financial institutions that have their entire livelihood based on these COBOL programs would rather upgrade their hardware and make THAT modern, but keep their legacy code. They already went through a multi-billion dollar fixing for the Y2K industry, that's more than enough for them. The next problem is either 2038 or 2050, when the Y2K issue is revisited because of how most companies implemented their "fix" (any date > 50 would be considered in the 21st century).
I was working at a bank during late 90s and during a building-wide Y2K meeting, one of the project managers was explaining to us how they implemented the solution. Someone in the crowd asked "Won't we go through this problem again in 2050?" He answered "Yes, but I'll be dead then, so I don't care."
That is how business people think... they care about solutions, they don't care about technology. Don't waste your time navel-gazing and trying to figure out brilliant ways of modernization COBOL, because no one who uses it cares. Keep your great ideas for the new ideas where the barrier to implementing new solutions and new technology is much lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Wordy (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem I had with COBOL, PL/1, Pascal and Modula 2 were they were wordy.
A lot of typing to perform simple operations. This is why I like C, minimal typing for great power.
More or less works for Java and later languages, too.
Frank Lloyd Wright (Score:2, Funny)
"Abandon it."
Cross out 'Pittsburgh', replace with 'COBOL', you get the idea.
The community (Score:2)
COBOL is dominant because no change is required. (Score:5, Insightful)
The slashdot article assumes that because of this the code may benefit from change. In fact the exact opposite is the case. Change introduces bugs and costs money, so I cannot see this happening.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it's only big (huge!) corporations running big back-ends that use COBOL, why should "the community" bother much with that? I doubt it's anyone's itch to scratch. Customers want to run COBOL because the code has had decades of real-world production use, not because of COBOLs merits. If the same people still ran assembler code, I'd trust that too. Doesn't mean I'd like to give up on modern languages because of it. If I heard the words "legacy modernization", I'd think "don't break what works". Doesn't mean big new developments are made in COBOL, they interface it.
I'm almost convinced that COBOL will be running on systems a hundred years from now. Any Turing complete language could produce working code to solve anything (or well, as much as any other Turing complete one, anyway). Clearly there's some such code in COBOL, which it makes no sense to reimplement in another language just for the sake of reimplementing it. But I don't see the benefit of trying to revive COBOL development, there are now much better tools for the job. How long has it been since the term "Completely Obsolete Business Oriented Language" was coined? It's dead, Jim. The only tools needed are those to ease its passing.
No emotional motivator for COBOL (Score:2)
Sorry friends, but I have to work on code that matches my passion. Otherwise I would not be able to swing my legs out of bed in the morning and live my life with joy. Some people may be making a living with COBOL but none of the cool kids (myself included) will touch it.
Re:No emotional motivator for COBOL (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry but I had to let that one out. "Code that matches my passion." is priceless.
When you start looking at a mortgage payment, car payment, grocery bill, doctor bill, etc. you'll realize that you work on something you can do well. Save your passion for your hobbies. Code on the bleeding edge at home.
Do you honestly expect business to conform to what you want to do instead of what works for them? Answer truly. And if you don't come up with "Heck no!" you need to rethink how it works.
Sure COBOL may not be for you. Good deal. Don't learn it. But if you're applying for a job and they need LegacySystem 5.7 and you tell them you don't know it, won't learn it, but would consider writing in BleedingEdgeSystem 0.54 you can pretty much figure out what the answer is going to be.
I've been coding since 1976. Yes, 1976. I've learned many languages. Some I've liked, some I haven't. But if the business needs it I learn it. Sometimes I learn it just because I want to. I missed out on COBOL (don't ask) but may just add it to my list of things I want to investigate.
I'm not being a troll or at least I'm not trying to be one. Some people will probably read that first exclamation and not go any farther. But sometimes you really do have to wake up and smell yesterday's coffee burning in the pot.
Re: (Score:2)
What COBOL has that other languages don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The big advantage COBOL has is that the language is serious about data storage. The language knows about structured files, databases, indices, and formatted fields. COBOL was the first language to have data structures.
Look at what a mess it is to talk to a database from Perl, Python, Java, or C/C++. There's fussy glue code required, and the language doesn't help you make sure that field XYZ in the database comes out as field XYZ in the program. In COBOL, it's straightforward. The language knows about databases. There's even a good interface to MySQL. [www.rldt.fr]
It also has some formatting capabilities that HTML should have had. You can write CREDIT-CARD-NUMBER PICTURE 9999-9999-9999-9999. In some systems, that will eventually result in an input field on a green screen that will only accept four fields of all numbers with all digits filled in and will display a blank form field accordingly. HTML FORM fields should have worked that way.
There are some real advantages to a language where components outside the individual programs can see, check, and use the data declarations.
There are companies that help with this- (Score:4, Informative)
They provide tools for transitioning from older Data General COBOL to newer OSes (Windows, RedHat).
Interesting thing also, is they provide a cgi platform for COBOL.
They also provide various APIs for C to interact with the COBOL program you have, services for code migration, etc etc.
The company is run by several ex-Data General employees, and they really know their stuff.
Disclaimer: I do not work for Envyr Corp, but I have family that does.
UTTER Nonsense! COBOL is glue language in a stack (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but I have to rant: Whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about.
COBOL is the glue language in a stack of application components sold by IBM including CICS (or ISPF), VSAM, DB2, etc. These are quite modern and up-to-date, and run on the mainframes that make the world go around by providing reliability and uptime at load levels beyond the wildest dreams of PC and Linux users. Sure, anyone could learn COBOL basics in a day or two, but you're not going to learn and certainly not going to "modernize" a COBOL program running against a DB2 database. COBOL is a glue language that glues together high-performance relational database access, high-performance presentation-layer management (CICS makes Windows API programming look simple!), etc to process umpty transactions per second, where umpty is a number beyond the reach of most Linux boxes. You're never going to "modernize" this stuff because it's the only thing around that can do what it does at that throughput level. The COBOL part is just a driver among the different components. Even the business logic has been factored out into stored procedures now.
There is no problem bolting on web access to databases and data warehouses, or stuff like that, but whoever wrote that (imagine that, a consulting group who will come in and modernize everything for you!) has absolutely no idea what COBOL applications are or do. You are most definitely not going to port legacy applications to new platforms that use CICS or ISPF for their presentation layer! Get a clue. And what platform are you going to port your COBOL program to? The mainframe is already the highest end platform of all time - there's nothing with more throughput - I doubt a company would take the notion of porting to MySQL on an Intel box very seriously. The bottom line is people use the IBM application stack because it works, at a performance level where nothing else works.
Sure, it would be fantastic to have an open source COBOL compiler with a MySQL precompiler so people could learn the language (ever tried to parse COBOL!?). And a Mono COBOL compiler would be fantastic. But no one is going to port their mission-critical business applications from a mainframe to a virtual machine runtime environment. You might use C# or Python to create new apps to access the data in new ways, offline, but you're not going to port mission-critical stuff.
mod parent up (Score:2)
Slashvertisement (Score:2)
pry that card deck from my cold, dead hands ... (Score:2)
Cobol and research community (Score:2, Interesting)
<shameless plug>
In our research group e.g., we're evaluating aspect-orientation (AOP) as a means to both reverse-engineer (understand) and re-engineer (modify) legacy software written in Cobol or C. To this end, we've designed
It's the enviroment, not the language. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with all of these modernization projects is not the language. It is the mass of old data, and the huge mass of business rules that are implemented by the old code. Reimplementing the business rules in new code, without interrupting the business, is just about impossible. Turns out the easy way is usually to just port the old Cobol code to the new environment.
The problem is not the language. The problem is the environment. Consider: A lot of that old Cobol code presently runs on Autocoder 790 systems, which are run by emulators on an OS 360 system, which is run by an emulator on a 390 series "mainframe", which is run by an emulator in the old Sun box that gathers dust in the corner of the old data center.
We really don't need a new language. What we need is something like a Cobol compiler, with an ISAM file-system emulation library, that outputs code for a well defined machine such as a java virtual machine. Then the resulting executables can run on whatever box happens to be handy next year.
This is either funny or insightful. Maybe both.
COBOL+VB (Score:3, Informative)
Object-oriented COBOL on the Java Virtual Machine (Score:3, Interesting)
You know.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? How does this comment apply to something abstract like a programming language? The COBOL language didn't degrade over time, yet somehow everyone's perception of it went from "this is the tool we need to use to do everything" to "please let it die."
Like every other widely-used language, COBOL has its place. You might not want to write a video game in it, but you also wouldn't want to write a billing system in C++.
Re:'legacy modernization' (Score:5, Funny)
Add MODERNIZATION to COBOL giving (MESS given by ADDITION of (SPORK given by ADDITION of FORK to SPOON) to EYES)
That's the modern version. It woulda taken me three lines to do it the old way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the period.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It has been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you intend on building a replacement for a system that:
1) Is ancient and pretty hard to understand to begin with
2) Has no source code
3) Can never, EVER be turned off
4) You don't specifically know the function of
?
You can either keep using what it was originally built with (okay, not "no" source code, but very little remains)
Or you can add "and is written in very dissimilar and unrelated languages"
Often the best way to "just start using" a better
Re:It has been said... (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be in touch with modern software principles but sadly you are out of touch with business principles. Ideology does not make a company money. And a company is about making money not writing code conforming to modern code design.
To make a business case for code change, you need to back up your reasoning by showing how it will either 1) save the company money within 5 years or less (including paying off all the money spent for the code upgrade which at large companies could run into hundreds of millions of dollars) or 2) earn more money for the company (including paying for the code changes) within 5 years or less. You could argue that these are the same things but I look at them differently as one causes earnings to increase indirectly through savings, and the other directly though increased revenue.
If you can't do either, then forget it. If you don't understand why, think about where your paycheque comes from and how the company is going to be able to afford to pay you to work on no-gain projects. If you don't want to understand why, then stay a coder... not even an analyst, stay a coder. You must justify the costs of these kinds of expenditures. Now it is possible and even likely that someone was able to justify the costs of fixing design issues on projects you worked on. However, in corporate life, wholesale 'fixing' of 30 or 40 year old stable code is not usually justifiable for design sake alone.
For example on on projects I have worked on where large companies have modernized their systems (often replacing Cobol code) it always involved monetary reasons. Many times Cobol systems are built on other Cobol systems, which are built on other Cobol systems... Business domains begin crossing back and forth across system boundaries and things (for example customer service) become a nightmare. Take a customer order management process: Customer wants three things, it might take three systems to order it, two different customer service reps, and if something goes wrong, support has to track things across 3 systems. If you want to create a new product package it takes too much time to coordinate between systems and one or more might need programming changes which might mean data conversions if the interfaces change between the systems, etc. If the pain threshold gets to high by holding back the company in effectively competing because their systems piss the users off, piss the customers off, and hold back introduction of competitive products (in other words, if it is costing them more money keeping the old system than replacing it will cost), then they will consider replacing the old systems.
Since we are talking Cobol and financial transactions, we are talking *mostly* about the corporate world. When you are talking about large corporations, the cost to replace even an ordering and billing system can run well into the hundred million dollar range or more. Tens of millions is not uncommon either. Projects in the million dollar range are a dime a dozen in the corporate world.
Note: I don't particularly like Cobol... actually I don't like it period (I like C/C++/Java syntax better because I understadn it :-). But for me to justify something to a customer, it must solve a customers problem. The first thing to remember is their main problem is how to make more money. Period. It is not about supporting good code design. They could have something in place that was the worst coding job in the history of the planet, but if it makes them money it won't matter. Unless of course you can show them in concrete terms that a good design will pay for itself by directly or indirectly making them more money.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) in Wikipedia articles? Or can you say anything as long as you prefix it with "It has been said ..."? If so I'm going to create an article about me with the line "It has been said that Chris has the good looks of Antonio Banderas and is hung like John Holmes".
The lords of Kobol (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say a typical C environment is also extremely stable. But C and COBOL both seem to suffer the same sorts of criticisms, so it doesn't surprise me. I guess "modern programmers" just want unstable systems than explode randomly and shift semantics every few years. No thanks.
I'll stick to my "archaic" languages and continue churning out useful code that works properly. If you lack the skills to properly use these languages, that's fine -- you need hand-holding, nothing wrong with that. But don't blame it
Re: (Score:2)
If a code has to be re-written (or in this case the own language COBOL) it is time to switch it by another and modern language.
Says Mister "extern void"...
(Nothing against C, I love it, but I enjoy the irony of your comment)