From: davef@tsoft-inc.com   
      
   On 11/11/2025 10:23 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > Well, Cobol represents practices of 1960 business data   
   > processing.   
      
   Sometimes things don't really change.  You count to 10 the same way now as in   
   1960.  (Trivial example)   
      
   > At that time it was state of the art.   
   > But state of the art changed.  Cobol somewhat adapted   
   > but it slow to this.  So your claim of "does it well"   
   > does not look true, unless by "it" you mean   
   > "replicating Cobol data processing from the sixties".   
   >   
   > To expand a bit more, Cobol has essentially unfixable problem   
   > with verbosity.   
      
   Now this is opinion, and really a poor argument.  While I detest the verbosity   
   in most things, that is my choice, not the problem you claim.   
      
   > Defining a function need a several lines of   
   > overhead code.  Function calls are more verbose than in other   
   > languages.  There are fixable problems, which however may   
   > appear when dealing with real Cobol code.  In particular   
   > Cobol support old control structures.  In new program you   
   > can use new control structures, but convering uses of old   
   > control strucures to new ones need effort and it is likely   
   > that a bit more effort would be enough to convert whole   
   > program to a different language.   
      
   I apologize in advance, but that is idiotic.  Any re-write of any non-trivial   
   application in another language, will never be complete. There will be errors   
   and things will be lost.  IT   WILL   HAPPEN   !!!  And when done, what will be   
   the gains in a sideways move?   
      
      
   --   
   David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450   
   Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com   
   DFE Ultralights, Inc.   
   170 Grimplin Road   
   Vanderbilt, PA  15486   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)