I think we've arrived at something like agreement on the DBMS point. FYI SQL query optimizers are very different from JIT compilers. The basic reason is the 3-6 orders of magnitude difference between the speed of the CPU and that of the I/O. Index creation is too expensive and slow to be done dynamically to answer queries.
I agree that for all its faults COBOL makes screen handling easy. I don't remember the syntax anymore, but it's stupifyingly easy to read/write the fields by name on a form. I've never seen anything so, um, simple in GUI programming or web programming. And I wish the folks who developed HTTP/HTML had heard of a Communication Area and pseudo-converstational connections.
You actually can't do in COBOL everything you can do in C because it lacks explicit pointers. Without pointers you can't reference arbitrary locations in memory. That's why the only CICS system I ever designed had an assembler module for the non-standard stuff.
As for ditching TCP/IP, while I don't doubt Infiniband has its place, your reasoning has a few problems.
- Security-through-obscurity is thoroughly discredited. At least, Whitfield Diffie thinks so. David Wheeler's book is online and not a bad place to start if you want to update yourself on security.
- If you think "most IP stacks today are about 99.9995% secure" and you (implicitly) agree with my argument that bug counts decrease as code is used, why do you think your infiniband stack will be better?
- Using IP doesn't automatically mean the webserver is connected to "the network". That's a design descision. Nothing prevents segregating the networks.
Widely used, well tested software such as your IP stack is bound to be more secure than whatever you would replace it with, despite the fact that the attacker knows what you're using and may even have the source code to it.
If they hacked the security on the web server through IP, they can very likely find a way to hack the security of the database server using a similar exploit.
That's a big if. I don't know what "99.9995% secure" means (what the denominator?) but I don't believe there's ever been an exploit via the TCP stack. It's one of those highly improbable events that, if it ever did happen, would suddenly subject millions of machines to attack. Your database server would be the least of your worries.
Nearly infinitely more likely, I'm sure you agree, is something much more pedestrian: social engineering, MD5 leaks, etc. Whatever it is, it doesn't follow that the same vehicle will exist on the DBMS host, nor should it.
Finally, since we're both fans of simplicity in programming, I leave you with this:
There are two methods in software design. One is to make the program so simple, there are obviously no errors. The other is to make it so complicated, there are no obvious errors.
— C. A. R. Hoare