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 :)
In reply to RE: RE: RE: Intended use and unintended use. An insight into design. (Continued)
by Ovid
in thread Intended use and unintended use. An insight into design.
by JanneVee
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |