←back to thread

127 points Anon84 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
ufmace ◴[] No.38509082[source]
The article title is clickbaity, but the actual point is the proposal of using LLMs to translate large amounts of legacy COBOL systems to more modern languages like Java. Doesn't seem terribly useful to me. I expect you could get a 90% solution faster, but the whole challenge with these projects is how to get that last bit of correctness, and how to be confident enough in the correctness of it to actually use it in Production.

But then all of this has been known for decades. There are plenty of well-known techniques for how to do all that. If they haven't actually done it by now, it's a management problem, and no AI tech is going to fix that.

replies(11): >>38509198 #>>38509418 #>>38509802 #>>38509995 #>>38510231 #>>38510273 #>>38510431 #>>38511157 #>>38511186 #>>38512486 #>>38512716 #
matthewdgreen ◴[] No.38509198[source]
How hard is it to actually learn COBOL? It seems like a fairly simple language to pick up, but maybe the idiomatic COBOL used in these legacy systems is particularly nasty for some reason.
replies(5): >>38509221 #>>38509476 #>>38509483 #>>38510105 #>>38510187 #
vbezhenar ◴[] No.38509476[source]
Language is easy, spaghetti code written without any discipline 60 years ago and modified in haste since is hard.
replies(3): >>38510023 #>>38510254 #>>38510732 #
1. timbit42 ◴[] No.38510023[source]
COBOL code I saw in the 80's and 90's wasn't spaghetti code. COBOL is pretty structured. If it's not, that would be a prior step in porting it to another language.