Experimental browser for the Atmosphere
But here's the thing: Banks have tried to rewrite their old COBOL systems in newer languages ... ... and discovered it is *incredibly* hard and expensive Risky, too! Rewriting billions of lines of code means creating *new* bugs Many banks have decided it isn't worth it: Stick with COBOL 7/9
Mar 30, 2025, 6:41 PM
{ "uri": "at://did:plc:fxn5uqrcdglryab2p3plltsc/app.bsky.feed.post/3llminrb4zc2m", "cid": "bafyreifyvgewmvf7mcp5ljqbdzglvx6zfd52z7hywr5h6u2m3todyjdebq", "value": { "text": "But here's the thing: Banks have tried to rewrite their old COBOL systems in newer languages ...\n\n... and discovered it is *incredibly* hard and expensive\n\nRisky, too! Rewriting billions of lines of code means creating *new* bugs\n\nMany banks have decided it isn't worth it: Stick with COBOL\n\n7/9", "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post", "embed": { "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images", "images": [ { "alt": "Screenshot reading:\n\n\"Some firms, worried that it’ll be too hard to find COBOL adepts in the years to come, try to rewrite their entire system in a new language. It is nearly always a hellish task: You have to think of every single thing your complex, decades-old software does, and recreate each tiny step in a new language. Three years ago the New York Times rewrote its COBOL-based newspaper-circulation system in Java; it was successful but took longer than expected due to the “vexing” challenge — in the coders’ words — of making sure the new system did what the old one did.\n\nAnd they were the lucky ones. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia tried to rewrite a core system in a fresh language; the project cost twice as much as they expected, $1 billion in Australian dollars. Len Santalucia, the longtime mainframe expert, once worked with the financial institution DTCC to investigate the possibility of converting their COBOL to Java.\n\n“They probably have about seventy-five million lines of COBOL code,” he tells me, “and they found out that it would cost them so much that it would take, maybe, a couple of lifetimes to recover. It was ridiculous. And they have more money than God.”\n\nSo the banks shrug, and figure, screw it. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Keep the old COBOL running. “These programs have been running day in, day out, 24/7 for 30 and 40 years. So why would we change it?” as Thomas says\"", "image": { "$type": "blob", "ref": { "$link": "bafkreid6fnjhx6eqsth4djahavcaz74x2ploovjwpglnt2ouo52zrspyfi" }, "mimeType": "image/jpeg", "size": 404131 }, "aspectRatio": { "width": 1470, "height": 1488 } } ] }, "langs": [ "en" ], "reply": { "root": { "cid": "bafyreiapi36i2jxk6m2j4p6xuql6prud4qbs2zixpldhv3rzdlxoef7p24", "uri": "at://did:plc:fxn5uqrcdglryab2p3plltsc/app.bsky.feed.post/3llmino6yfc2m" }, "parent": { "cid": "bafyreidpodvviktmujfioepplpqee47vrjeay6eqxwdqe5mhjnhq3uilry", "uri": "at://did:plc:fxn5uqrcdglryab2p3plltsc/app.bsky.feed.post/3llminqquj22m" } }, "createdAt": "2025-03-30T18:41:36.375Z" } }