Tom's Hardware learned that candidates would oversee machines running 166 MHz processors with 8 MB of RAM, which are used to display important technical train data to...
e: good for legacy employment though. A relative of mine is a Z80 programmer by trade, and he can effectively walk into a job because the talent pool is so small now. Granted - the wages are never great but never poor, and the role is maintenance and troubleshooting rather than being on the leading edge of development - but it’s a job for life.
I’m in two minds about that. One the one hand, yes, of course - as all the original COBOL folks die off, the skills will be even rarer and thus worth more.
On the other hand, if we keep propping up old shit, the businesses will keep relying on it and it’ll be even more painful when they do eventually get forced to migrate off it.
On the other other hand, we know it works, and we don’t want to migrate everything into a series of Electron apps just because that’s popular at the moment.
If it works, why would we want to go through the trouble of switching to another language that will also eventually be regarded as needing to be retired? There’s decades of debugging and improvement done on their system, start over with a new system and all that work needs to be done again but with a programming language that’s probably much more complex and that leaves the door open to more mistakes…
It wasn’t for me, too wordy and felt more like something for accounting/corporate than a programmer. I was offered a good-paying job programming COBOL out of college but turned it down because I didn’t want to spend my life with it. But that’s just me.
Your feelings regarding the language being designed for use by accountants/corporate are completely correct. COBOL was originally designed to be very verbose for this exact reason (i.e. to make COBOL programs accessible/readable for business folk).
I’m a programmer but personally I like the verbosity of COBOL. I like self-documenting code. The code I write in other languages often ends up being pretty wordy too. Certainly there can be a long debate about how verbose programs should be.
I wouldn’t say that COBOL is terrible and deserves to die for this design decision though, especially when it outperforms other languages in the places that really matter (i.e. doing business transactions quickly and accurately).
For what it’s worth, it’s possible to make COBOL less verbose. Standard COBOL syntax is still getting updated (iirc the last standard COBOL update was in 2023). These updates have often made keywords that were otherwise mandatory before optional. If you add COBOL dialects to the mix you can get code which is very similar to other languages depending on which dialect you choose.
COBOL has entered the chat
e: good for legacy employment though. A relative of mine is a Z80 programmer by trade, and he can effectively walk into a job because the talent pool is so small now. Granted - the wages are never great but never poor, and the role is maintenance and troubleshooting rather than being on the leading edge of development - but it’s a job for life.
🥲
Every time I hear about COBOL I feel like I should try to learn it as a backup plan…
I’m in two minds about that. One the one hand, yes, of course - as all the original COBOL folks die off, the skills will be even rarer and thus worth more.
On the other hand, if we keep propping up old shit, the businesses will keep relying on it and it’ll be even more painful when they do eventually get forced to migrate off it.
On the other other hand, we know it works, and we don’t want to migrate everything into a series of Electron apps just because that’s popular at the moment.
Part of the problem is the cost of moving off it. Some companies simply can’t pay what that would cost, and that’s before you consider the risk.
Tough spot to be in.
Let COBOL die, it’s terrible.
If it works, why would we want to go through the trouble of switching to another language that will also eventually be regarded as needing to be retired? There’s decades of debugging and improvement done on their system, start over with a new system and all that work needs to be done again but with a programming language that’s probably much more complex and that leaves the door open to more mistakes…
In what way is it terrible?
It wasn’t for me, too wordy and felt more like something for accounting/corporate than a programmer. I was offered a good-paying job programming COBOL out of college but turned it down because I didn’t want to spend my life with it. But that’s just me.
Your feelings regarding the language being designed for use by accountants/corporate are completely correct. COBOL was originally designed to be very verbose for this exact reason (i.e. to make COBOL programs accessible/readable for business folk).
I’m a programmer but personally I like the verbosity of COBOL. I like self-documenting code. The code I write in other languages often ends up being pretty wordy too. Certainly there can be a long debate about how verbose programs should be.
I wouldn’t say that COBOL is terrible and deserves to die for this design decision though, especially when it outperforms other languages in the places that really matter (i.e. doing business transactions quickly and accurately).
For what it’s worth, it’s possible to make COBOL less verbose. Standard COBOL syntax is still getting updated (iirc the last standard COBOL update was in 2023). These updates have often made keywords that were otherwise mandatory before optional. If you add COBOL dialects to the mix you can get code which is very similar to other languages depending on which dialect you choose.
You have to unlearn everything you know to learn it, go look its bad.