in reply to RE: Intended use and unintended use. An insight into design.
in thread Intended use and unintended use. An insight into design.

Converting from COBOL is often prohibitively expensive, given the massive size of the systems they run. When I mentioned that a system could have hundreds or thousands of jobs, I also should have mentioned that a company can have hundreds or thousands of systems. We did.

So what is COBOL's "place?" It's for companies who have to walk because they can't afford to buy a car. Why is IBM, the makers of the Big Iron that COBOL usually runs on, banking on Linux? Because new companies aren't choosing COBOL. COBOL is dying a sad, slow, but much deserved death.

COBOL is walking, modern languages are driving. COBOL is the horse and buggy up against the automobile. It's the dinosaur vs. the mammal.

For those Monks who are curious as to the genesis of this discussion, check out Perl: Survival of the Fittest.

  • Comment on RE: Intended use and unintended use. An insight into design. (Continued)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: Intended use and unintended use. An insight into design. (Continued)
by JanneVee (Friar) on Jun 22, 2000 at 23:01 UTC
    Of course... If Cobol is like walking, I should point out that you can't drive everywhere. i.e. the purpose of COBOL is to walk where you have to walk. It is damn expensive to make roads everywhere... To continue the analogy.

    Also walking requires different skill than driving. Like uhm... you don't need a license to walk ! .... That means also that you won't spend time walking to the wrong place. You have a goal. When you drive it isn't that expensive when it comes to time when you drive wrong. And so on...

    As for Dinosaurs vs. Mammals... There are a few dinosaurs left... the crocodiles are descendents from the dinosaurs. They are quite succsefull predators aren't they?

[reply]
      Wow. I've never seen anyone beat a horse to death with an analogy :)

      The problem with analogy, of course, is that it can be confused with Truth when it is intended simply for illustration.

      Considering the tremendous overhead involved with getting a mainframe up and running, why would any new company throw away the car keys and use COBOL? For an established company that is already entrenched in COBOL, the "overhead" is a sunk cost. Converting to different languages would involve an analysis of future costs and those costs may be unsustainable.

      To slightly skew the analogy, how many of us have bought a new car, had it turn into a beater over the years and have spent so much money fixing it that we can't afford a better car, but know we need one?

      JanneVee, I'll make you a deal: if you can show me a cost-effective reason why any new company would use COBOL, I will admit my error and tell everyone how you have humbled me with your wisdom :)

[reply]
        I'll make you a deal: if you can show me a cost-effective reason why any new company would use COBOL, I will admit my error and tell everyone how you have humbled me with your wisdom :)

        I don't believe in me being right or you being wrong. It is seeing things in different ways.

        But to give you an example of why a new company would consider a "new" COBOL solution cost-effective! When it comes to companies. Quite often they aren't isolated, they have to interface their system with other systems, to avoid breaking the "shop standard consistency" of their partner(let say an old dinosaur company!). It usually means that they are better of augmenting the old system with their own system (use cobol on their own machines to interface).

        Here is another example... A new Consulting company that maintains old COBOL solutions, to train their personel they let them build a system for them in COBOL. "A cost-effective training implementation"!

[reply]

In Section Meditations