←back to thread

Watsonx: IBM's code assistant for turning COBOL into Java

(www.pcmag.com)
127 points Anon84 | 1 comments | 03 Dec 23 16:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hedora ◴[03 Dec 23 23:07 UTC] No.38511721[source]▶
The implicit assumption here is that developers will charge less to maintain code that was machine translated from cobol to java than they will to maintain the original code.

I’d certainly want to be paid more to deal with the LLM output than the original source code.

I don’t know cobol and I do know java, but that doesn’t enter into it from my perspective.

replies(1): >>38511750 #
1. delecti ◴[03 Dec 23 23:10 UTC] No.38511750[source]▶
> I don’t know cobol and I do know java, but that doesn’t enter into it from my perspective.

Shouldn't it though? Maybe you (as an individual) would charge (or expect to be paid) more to maintain LLM code than bespoke code, banks know they won't have to pay as much to you (as a member of the collective of java engineers) than they would to a cobol dev.

Really the implicit assumption is that cobol devs are fewer and more expensive than java devs.