←back to thread

127 points Anon84 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tw04 ◴[] No.38508735[source]
Plenty of folks know COBOL - the problem is you need to entice someone YOUNG to learn it, which basically means overpaying them. If I'm an 18-year-old why would I focus on learning a programming language that puts me in a job with 0 chance of advancement? Sure I'm irreplaceable to the company, but I've also only got a handful of other places I could go if they treat me poorly or sunset their mainframe.
replies(3): >>38508805 #>>38509372 #>>38510305 #
tobyjsullivan ◴[] No.38508805[source]
I’d be curious to know how we’re defining “overpaying” here. These companies have effectively accrued 50+ years of technical debt (they could have migrated off COBOL decades ago). Meanwhile, based on my limited experience with these industries, I’d be surprised if they even offer market rates to new hires.
replies(3): >>38508933 #>>38509381 #>>38510716 #
nobodyandproud ◴[] No.38508933[source]
Let me up the ante. Why do we believe COBOL is yech-debt?
replies(2): >>38509208 #>>38510346 #
1. tobyjsullivan ◴[] No.38510346{3}[source]
If there’s a shortage of developers who understand the language, then the team cannot properly understand the application (as per TFA).

If nobody can understand the application, it cannot be modified.

If an application cannot be modified, its value will continuously decrease with time.

That decrease in value, as well as the projected cost of building a replacement, is tantamount to accruing interest on a debt.

They could have reduced that debt by moving to functionally equivalent but more commonly taught languages back when their team could still understand the system.

It wasn’t necessarily wrong for them to accrue this debt - after all, banks and these monolithic institutions are masters at effectively utilizing debt. However, the practice may have become habitual and it looks like they might be in pretty deep at this point.

replies(1): >>38510722 #
2. nobodyandproud ◴[] No.38510722[source]
Many systems are obscure or niche, but that isn’t tech debt.

What you’re describing is a management and leadership failure.

In US tech we have an overabundance of Type A people in it for the money, but there are plenty of smart Type Bs who just want stability and a life, for a fraction of the going SV engineering pay.

You have to wonder why the latter is impossible for American companies to achieve.