The transpilers I've seen have created some extraordinary Java. If you've experience of the COBOL "Data Division", imagine how that gets ported across to an object oriented language..

But I still agree with you. I've experience of a couple of COBOL migration projects, and I wouldn't want AI anywhere near it. The testing required is insane enough as it is, and the once-a-decade corner cases numerous enough for the idea of using AI on this to scare the bejeesus out of me.

This is code that can still contain for-loops to slow down processing so the teleprinters can keep up...

Well if nothing else, the AI could help you write more unit tests.

Well, if nothing else, the AI could be slow enough that the teleprinters can keep up.

That's a good shout, actually.

As side note, modern versions of ISO COBOL also supports OOP.

ADD ONE TO COBOL GIVING COBOL

Hahah, I assume you've seen the OOP implementation? Quite a thing. I believe it was added when OOP was in fashion.

Looking at products in the market, it is still quite in fashion.

As for COBOL, it was added in 2002.

Oh but there was a time when it was in the ascendant phase of the peak of inflated expectations, similar to the enthusiasm for LLMs at the moment.

Indeed, my point was regarding those that keep declaring OOP dead, while all major languages and frameworks keep supporting flavours of it.

Interestingly if I were using AI to do this the place I would focus is testing. Coding assistants seem to be very good at generating run-of-the-mill testing, which would free up testers to focus on the once in a decade stuff.

You can also keep doing COBOL but compile for Java bytecode and run directly in the JVM

"Why Move to JVM COBOL Code?" - https://www.microfocus.com/documentation/visual-cobol/vc60/D...