Re:Yes, the World Still Needs COBOL Programmers
by dragonwriter on Monday December 28, 2015 @12:35PM
(#10802225)
> I don't like it that people think it's dead or legacy because often times it isn't and that mindset keeps people from caring about security or using current best practices in COBOL code.
The only reason COBOL isn't dead is because it is legacy (or, rather, because there is mountains of -- often undocumented, untested, and with requirements and domain knowledge largely lost and buried in the code -- legacy code written in it.)
And that code didn't have security or best practices (including things like loosely-coupled components with well-defined purposes) kept in mind when it was first written, which makes updating it in a manner which respects security and best practices difficult, at best.
The new code being written in COBOL is largely extensions and updates to existing legacy systems.
No doubt there are some exceptions, but they are a small fraction of what is going on with COBOL, which is itself a shrinking niche in programming overall.
The only reason COBOL isn't dead is because it is legacy (or, rather, because there is mountains of -- often undocumented, untested, and with requirements and domain knowledge largely lost and buried in the code -- legacy code written in it.)
And that code didn't have security or best practices (including things like loosely-coupled components with well-defined purposes) kept in mind when it was first written, which makes updating it in a manner which respects security and best practices difficult, at best.
The new code being written in COBOL is largely extensions and updates to existing legacy systems.
No doubt there are some exceptions, but they are a small fraction of what is going on with COBOL, which is itself a shrinking niche in programming overall.