From: arne@vajhoej.dk   
      
   On 11/10/2025 10:19 AM, bill wrote:   
   > On 11/10/2025 9:12 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:   
   >> Question: are they low-risk because they were designed to do one thing   
   >> and to do it very well in extremely demanding environments ?   
   >>   
   >> Are the replacements higher-risk because they are more of a generic   
   >> infrastructure and the mission critical workloads need to be force-fitted   
   >> into them ?   
   >   
   > And here you finally hit the crux of the matter.   
   > People wonder why I am still a strong supporter if COBOL.   
   > The reason is simple.  It was a language designed to do   
   > a particular task and it does it well.  Now we have this   
   > desire to replace it with something generic.  I feel this   
   > is a bad idea.   
   >   
   > Thin of IBM as the same problem only  on a much grander scale.   
   > Not just a language but a whole system with a target in mind.   
   > And today you have people suggesting they replace that system   
   > with something totally generic.  Why would that be a good idea?   
      
   I cannot follow your argument.   
      
   You have a problem that require feature A.   
      
   You have X with feature A and Y with features A and B.   
      
   Y is not less suited for the problem just because it has   
   extra features.   
      
   Y is more expensive to develop and maintain.   
      
   Y is harder to learn.   
      
   I am all for simplicity, but for different reasons.   
      
   Arne   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)