57
US banks rely on a 65-year-old programming language; companies are paying a premium for developers who know it (m.economictimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/cobol@programming.dev
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

It's COBOL isn't it?

After reading the first sentence... Yes it is. It's not like this is a surprise. Banks are some of the worst when it comes to actually replacing outdated shit. Until it fails, and takes their entire business with it of course.

These articles have been written for at least two decades now. This isn't a new issue. The banks just refuse to do what's necessary because it is expensive and they want to keep kicking the can down the road. Eventually that can is gonna fall apart, and the millions to upgrade... Will be a nothing compared to the billions they lose daily after.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think the money is the problem. Because one can always do a shadow or A/B deployment.

    I bet it is to do with unreliability of migrations and the general fact that new tech is a bit jank.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Also: The newer, the more complex, the more complex the more open to attacks, the more open to attacks the more vulnerable. I'd choose this approach too. Basically unhackable with totally no backdoors. If it works, don't fix it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent