Subj : Re: COBOL?
To : unixl0rd
From : Dr. What
Date : Thu May 04 2023 07:16 am
-=> unixl0rd wrote to MRO <=-
un> My guess is that the codebase is so large and complicated that
un> re-hiring retired devs would be more efficient than hiring new devs who
un> don't know their way around the code. On the other hand, new
un> applications may not require the same amount of experience, and this is
un> where new devs would step in.
The problem for these companies is:
1. COBOL isn't perceived as a good career path since it's being phased out.
2. While legacy code doesn't get alot of work done on it, it tends to be
**bad** code because of the number of different programmers having worked on it
over the (sometimes, many, many) years.
So new devs don't have the COBOL skills and have to be trained on something
that has a corporate-stated end of life - which is a bad investment. And even
if the new devs have COBOL skills, they wouldn't have the experience to quickly
and effectively change the legacy code.
... You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � ** The Gate BBS - Shelby, NC - thegateb.synchro.net **
