|
Feinder -> RE: Cobol, C Fortran.... (4/6/2005 6:30:31 PM)
|
I 've done quite a bit of Cobol programming. Our shop started almost exclusively COBOL, but is now split about half-n-half between mainframe and client-server/web (fortunately, I now live in client-server/web land). But in it's defense, while Cobol is old, and certainly not as pretty as .net and it's umbrella, it serves a purpose.
Most large businesses have COBOL apps (esp if they need a mainframe). Most of it is legacy code, but it's still out there. As powerful as SQL-server and client-server tech has become, it's -still- no where near as powerful as even a mediocre mainframe. If you've got to batch up 120 million accounts, and do your debits and credits in 2 minutes or less, you use COBOL.
That being said, conversions are being made, and COBOL -is- on the decrease (but not nearly as dramatically as people claim). Folks said COBOL would be dead by 1980, 35 years ago. It lasted into the 90s, and even thru Y2k. There's even a COBOL.net now (* which just makes me blink, they did what?*). Most companies need to process large numbers of transactions in batch at some point. And that's exactly what Cobol and DB2 are best suited for. It has a place. And to a large degree, there's no justification for to spend the money necessary to redevelope a legacy system in newer code, when there isn't anything wrong with the old code (aside from periodic updates).
-F-
|
|
|
|
