Slashdot Mirror


Smithsonian Celebrates 50 Years of COBOL

wiredog writes "The Atlantic reports the news that the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History has a new section of their website dedicated to documenting COBOL's history. An exhibit will open at the museum this spring."

178 comments

  1. Museum Fight! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Under cover of darkness, employees of the Museum of Natural history broke in and appropriated the exhibit to add to their world-renowned dinosaur collection...

    1. Re:Museum Fight! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      30 years from now, it will be PERL. With turtles, all the way down!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Museum Fight! by windcask · · Score: 1

      Perl will die around the same time the world's oil reserves dry up or when we run out of IPV4 addresses. People love to talk about it, but it'll never actually happen.

    3. Re:Museum Fight! by asvravi · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be called UNCOBOL already?

    4. Re:Museum Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perl should have died at birth.

    5. Re:Museum Fight! by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

      The following week Ben Stiller broke into the Museum of Natural History and the museum's computers started having Y2K problems when the 50 year-old COBOL exhibit came to life.

    6. Re:Museum Fight! by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

      These dinosaurs aren't extinct though.

      Banks still use COBOL heavily.

      COBOL was my first language, so I have a soft spot for it.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    7. Re:Museum Fight! by sycodon · · Score: 2, Informative

      COBOL excels at moving data from file to file. I haven't seen the Redefines capability in any other language and is very very powerful when it comes to slicing up data before transformation and then putting it back together in other formats.

      Of course, nothing can touch the combination of mainframes and COBOL when it comes to processing millions and millions of records.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:Museum Fight! by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Perl should have died at birth.

      Actually, Perl is an abortion.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    9. Re:Museum Fight! by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      COBOL -- Crappy Old Bad Obsolete Language

      But, it IS a dinasaur. It was one of the very first computer languages there were. It was a milestone in computing history. From the Yale page about Grace Hopper:

      Pursuing her belief that computer programs could be written in English, Admiral hopper moved forward with the development for Univac of the B-O compiler, later known as FLOW-MATIC. It was designed to translate a language that could be used for typical business tasks like automatic billing and payroll calculation. Using FLOW-MATIC, Admiral Hopper and her staff were able to make the UNIVAC I and II "understand" twenty statements in English. When she recommended that an entire programming language be developed using English words, however, she "was told very quickly that [she] couldn't do this because computers didn't understand English." It was three years before her idea was finally accepted; she published her first compiler paper in 1952.

      Admiral Hopper actively participated in the first meetings to formulate specifications for a common business language. She was one of the two technical advisers to the resulting CODASYL Executive Committee, and several of her staff were members of the CODASYL Short Range Committee to define the basic COBOL language design. The design was greatly influenced by FLOW-MATIC. As one member of the Short Range Committee stated, "[FLOW-MATIC] was the only business-oriented programming language in use at the time COBOL development started... Without FLOW-MATIC we probably never would have had a COBOL." The first COBOL specifications appeared in 1959.

      Admiral Hopper devoted much time to convincing business managers that English language compilers such as FLOW-MATIC and COBOL were feasible. She participated in a public demonstration by Sperry Corporation and RCA of COBOL compilers and the machine independence they provided. After her brief retirement from the Navy, Admiral Hopper led an effort to standardize COBOL and to persuade the entire Navy to use this high-level computer language. With her technical skills, she lead her team to develop useful COBOL manuals and tools. With her speaking skills, she convinced managers that they should learn to use them.

      Another major effort in Admiral Hopper's life was the standardization of compilers. Under her direction, the Navy developed a set of programs and procedures for validating COBOL compilers. This concept of validation has had widespread impact on other programming languages and organizations; it eventually led to national and international standards and validation facilities for most programming languages.

      From wikipedia:

      In the spring of 1959 a two day conference known as the CODASYL brought together computer experts from industry and government. Hopper served as the technical consultant to the committee, and many of her former employees served on the short-term committee that defined the new language, COBOL. The new language extended Hopper's FLOW-MATIC language with some ideas from the IBM equivalent, the COMTRAN. Hopper's belief that programs should be written in a language that was close to English rather than in machine code or languages close to machine code (such as assembly language) was captured in the new business language, and COBOL would go on to be the most ubiquitous business language to date.[10]

      From 1967 to 1977, Hopper served as the director of the Navy Programming Languages Group in the Navy's Office of Information Systems Planning and was promoted to the rank of Captain in 1973.[9] She developed validation software for the programming language COBOL and its compiler as part of a COBOL standardization program for the entire Navy

    10. Re:Museum Fight! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      Of course, nothing can touch the combination of mainframes and COBOL when it comes to processing millions and millions of records.

      That sounds kind of like Dr. Evil:

      "My mainframe computer is so powerful, it can process ... MILLIONS of records! Hahaha!"

    11. Re:Museum Fight! by kat_skan · · Score: 2

      With turtles, all the way down!

      That's LOGO. Perl would be camels I think.

    12. Re:Museum Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's better for moving data from file to file? ANYTHING.

    13. Re:Museum Fight! by alexborges · · Score: 0

      "Of course, nothing can touch the combination of mainframes and COBOL when it comes to processing millions and millions of records."

      Mhm... we have this new thing called databases, you know?

      Its revolutionary....

      --
      NO SIG
    14. Re:Museum Fight! by Rik+Rohl · · Score: 1

      That soft spot is actually the brain damage you get from using COBOL :D

    15. Re:Museum Fight! by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Mhm... we have this new thing called databases, you know?

      Its revolutionary....

      Databases have been on mainframes since the 60's, you know?

      It's not revolutionary...

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    16. Re:Museum Fight! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      So where are the jobs, then?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    17. Re:Museum Fight! by saramakos · · Score: 1

      I personally always used "Cranky Old Bastard Of a Language"... Worthy of respect for what it achieved, but did my head in when I was forced to learn it.

    18. Re:Museum Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as those records are of fixed length, since most mainframe programmers can't get their head bent far enough to understand the concept of dynamic memory allocation in any shape whatsoever. So no XML or other Microsoftisms apply...

    19. Re:Museum Fight! by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Have you heard about DB2 on OS/390 or 360? Its also called a da-ta-base and its very useful. Oh, and it was available long before Oracle was born.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    20. Re:Museum Fight! by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1

      So no XML...

      I'm not really a COBOL-lover, but you're starting to sell me on it.

    21. Re:Museum Fight! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Actually, us mainframe guys were doing XML before it was called XML. It was called EDI in 1988.

      Oh, and DB2 too.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    22. Re:Museum Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, nothing can touch the combination of mainframes and COBOL when it comes to processing millions and millions of records.

      Google. Python. Cluster of PCs. Billions of records.

      Touched.

  2. Along with other disasters? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1, Funny

    If they put it next to exhibits of the Great Chicago Fire, Love Canal, and Three Mile Island then I would applaud the curators for their good taste.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:Along with other disasters? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey! Three Mile Island was not a disaster. It was a boon to those of us living nearby as our electric bills plunged because we no longer had to turn on our lights at night.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Along with other disasters? by Tr3vin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but you guys are a real distraction at movie theaters.

    3. Re:Along with other disasters? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Disaster? Hardly. Let's see where "insert your favorite language here" is after 50 years.

      A recent Gartner study found COBOL in about 75% of enterprise business processes still today. There are an estimated 200 billion lines of COBOL still in use today (at least as late as 2004), with around 2 billion new lines being added each year.

      There is considerable controversy about the accuracy of the 200 billion lines, but nonetheless, I would hardly classify this kind of success as a disaster.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    4. Re:Along with other disasters? by JockTroll · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that, beside the glow, you leave toxic goo everywhere and we just hate the way you eat popcorn with your tentacles.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    5. Re:Along with other disasters? by mevets · · Score: 1

      Its a good perspective; but cobol seemed 50 years old 25 years ago when I learnt it. It is weirder that UNIX is 40, and C somewhere around 35.
      C still seems very spirited, despite a few rounds of standardization, and its weird dialects.
      UNIX has suffered more with prosthetics, but I'm amazed at the range and breadth of applications of modern UNIX; much of the credit for that goes to linux.

    6. Re:Along with other disasters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry sparky, you can talk up COBOL if you want, but you're pissing into the wind. C was created in 1972, and its still held in high regard (38 years later). Cobol was being bashed in 1989 (when I first took a COBOL course in college). Even Grace Hopper and the gang (the original designers of the language) remarked 5 years later (45 years ago), that it was a throwaway language meant to only last maybe 6 months or a year, and if they knew it would still be around --5 years later-- that they would have done a better job of it. People keep touting how many people are using it, how many lines of code are out there, and thus (apparently) how great it is. As programming languages go, its like "Programming for Dummies". It was touted as 'something simple enough for business people to understand', yet business people don't program it (or rarely). Its an inefficient language to program. In C, you can program complex algorithms in a small amount of space and with few characters. In Cobol, you cannot program many algorithms (period), and its extremely verbose in what it wants. You type and type and type. It complains over very stupid things (like not having the code in the correct punch card format). No one has been using punched cards for 30+ years. In college I wrote a FPS video game (as an assignment in C), where you had to shoot "COBOLIANS" out of the sky, and you got BIG prizes for shooting them all out of the sky. That too, was more than 20 years ago. No one in their right mind chooses to do 'green field' applications in COBOL. Any new stuff is done because 'we are already stuck with all this old stuff', and because business tends to be conservative and crotchety. The joy is, that eventually these businesses will all die off, and the 'investment in COBOL' will die with them. Once gone, there is no going back.

    7. Re:Along with other disasters? by perotbot · · Score: 1

      COBOL is still the basis of MANY financial systems, even Lawson which runs on websphere with a metric ton of java applets has cobol running under AIX as the backend

      --
      ~corporate tool, but employed~
    8. Re:Along with other disasters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a disaster if you think that COBOL is a terrible language and should not have achieved such popularity.

    9. Re:Along with other disasters? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But COBOL was one of if not the first "high level" languages. c was came after COBOL, after FORTRAN, after bpcl, after Algol, after Lisp, after PL/1, after APL, and after Pascal.
      Of course c aged better because it had decades of evolution of programing languages behind it. COBOL has fallen out of favor and I will admit that it isn't a fun languages. But most of the people posting about how terrible it is have never used it. It is still used today so it must have worked very well indeed.
      How many systems today are still running on Algol, bpcl, and or PL/1? Not a lot for sure.
      Frankly COBOL, FORTRAN, and Lisp are all huge success stories. COBOL and FORTRAN are still used today in a lot of very critical systems. Lisp is still used in many teaching environments and some production ones. Love it or hate it only a fool would dismiss COBOL as anything less that a huge success.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Along with other disasters? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Even if today it was down to 1 line of code, just because it has faded doesn't make it a disaster. It ruled the computing world for decades. Now, i agree, its 'just' a *huge* player in the back office, and if it vanished tomorrow we would be in a world of hurt.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    11. Re:Along with other disasters? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Some of the deficiencies you point out are no longer the case. COBOL has evolved a lot in the last 25 years including getting rid of the punch card format.

      Don't get me wrong, I'd rather not program in it but it's no where near the horror it used to be. I agree it's unlikely anyone would create a new application in COBOL but there is a lot of business rules and knowledge coded in the millions of COBOL applications out there and there's no reason and no cost justification for throwing it all away.

      If it ain't broke don't fix it.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    12. Re:Along with other disasters? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      C still seems very spirited, despite a few rounds of standardization, and its weird dialects.

      C is low-level enough that the number of concepts it has to deal with is surprisingly low. Getting those right (or, really, "good enough", because C is by no means a perfectly designed language) is not all that hard. And once you have it, there's little reason to replace it with something else in this niche - there are simply no benefits to do so.

  3. Yeah, well... by fade · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I read the headline, my head parsed "Smithsonian celebrates 150 Years of COBOL" ... but I guess that's just because when it's COBOL, it only feels like 150 years.

    1. Re:Yeah, well... by laejoh · · Score: 1

      With my Y2K / COBOL background I would say it felt like 50 years.

  4. Exhibit will have a strange layout... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 4, Funny

    There will not be a single dedicated area to show off the exhibit. Instead, the exhibit will be scattered about in separate rooms called copybooks.

    1. Re:Exhibit will have a strange layout... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no placards will be needed as it is self documenting.

  5. Re:Oh My... by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

    Especially if it was among the first real programming languages you learned, and you can still remember what COBOL stands for without looking it up (guilty)!

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  6. Hopefully there's enough room... by forkfail · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... in the Paleontology area.

    --
    Check your premises.
    1. Re:Hopefully there's enough room... by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Depends on the picture...

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  7. Re:Oh My... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow that line just doesn't have the same ring coming from a 7-digit UID.

  8. feature exhibit: malware in the COBOL era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of stuxnet, assistant coaches from the New York Jets football team will line up to trip unsuspecting programmers carrying boxes of cards containing the source code.

  9. Re:Oh My... by Xiph · · Score: 3

    Completely Obsolete Boring Old Language

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
  10. Hmm... by masterwit · · Score: 1

    "Feeling old yet? Smithsonian...perfect. Just perfect."
    (Was my friend's response...I'm too young to appreciate this fully, he is not).

    --
    We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
  11. Fortune by ddxexex · · Score: 1

    This fortune was so close to being in this article:
    COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra
    Too bad this article wasn't posted sooner

    1. Re:Fortune by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2

      Really COBOL, in the last iteration I worked with it in at least, had 'caught up' with the times in alot of ways. 10 years ago I learned OO COBOL, which really made COBOL alot like C++. Though COBOL was sort of limited in IO: files, text to screen, and at most pixel switching for primitive graphics. No fancy GUI's here. Most of COBOL though was about file interaction, bring stuff in, work on it, and output once more. Sometimes with user input, though often not.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    2. Re:Fortune by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The combination of Mainframes and COBOL is the Catapiller D9 of computer system. When it comes to moving mountians of data through the system, the girlie languages running on PC farmes just can't keep up.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:Fortune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dijkstra was a bit of an asshole. So that has to be taken into context when quoting him.

    4. Re:Fortune by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      'Caught up with the times' and 'a lot like C++' are not really compatible comments.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Fortune by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      True. The only people that think that C++ is a good object oriented programing language are people that have only used C++.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Fortune by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Ok, so I have a mountain of flood model data. You set your COBOL job against my MapReduce job and let's see who wins.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Fortune by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      But he was light-years ahead of others in his field in his skills, ability, foresight and knowledge. Kinda makes Ballmer and Bill Gates look like script kiddies.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    8. Re:Fortune by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not a programmer by trade, I'm a network 'engineer'/'administrator'. What I learned in programming stopped at Java/C++ (C++ being taught within a Java environment actually). So the latest wizz bang language are thinks outside my scope.

      However 10 years ago OO was a key factor in 'modernizing' COBOL. Saying that those things didn't make COBOL 'catch up with the times' by matching what was then easily the most popular coding language (remember Java was very new then) of the time... Well that sure seems 'caught up' to me.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  12. Good Times by Bucc5062 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may be crass to admit, but I had some great experiences working in my first COBOL position. Sure it dates me...so what, I got a lawn and am proud of it. I do appreciate the development tools I use as a current developer, but something about the simplicity, and the structure make me feel nostalgic. Lately I see code with no documentation, no good structure and buggy. COBOL, FORTRAN, and Pascal separated IT programmers (and staff) from middle managers and office workers that today think writing an Access VBA makes them a .net developer. You can't go back (nor would I, but for the need of a job), yet I would like to see some of the foundations that went into development groups make a comeback.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    1. Re:Good Times by oh-dark-thirty · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. When in school, COBOL was my least favorite language to work in, then I got a real job and learned to love it. COBOL and Wang VS, a match made in heaven, lol...

    2. Re:Good Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. When in school, COBOL was my least favorite language to work in, then I got a real job and learned to love it.

      Well, the Goatse man learned to love sticking things with a 15cm circumference up his ass, but you'll not find me queueing up to try it out.

    3. Re:Good Times by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      ...and C++, Java and C# separate me from the middle managers who think the fact they wrote FORTRAN 30 years ago makes them a software engineer today.

      "A real programmer can write FORTRAN code in any language!" Oh, the horrors.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    4. Re:Good Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so.... you love the wang?

    5. Re:Good Times by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      I would add ALGOL PL/1 and MIX to that list of oldies. PL/1 was my first. I paid 10 dollars for a programming language manual in about 1976 and didn't eat that week, but I had the most curious week of reading... Proc Options (Main); humm the rest is blue screens and history....

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  13. The trees have been saved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to program in Cobol and I used to measure my code in the number of feet of paper that the lineprinter would print instead of lines of code. Even the "Hello World" program would be more than 1 foot in length...

    1. Re:The trees have been saved by sycodon · · Score: 1

      000100 IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
      000200 PROGRAM-ID. HELLOWORLD.
      000300
      000400*
      000500 ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
      000600 CONFIGURATION SECTION.
      000700 SOURCE-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL.
      000800 OBJECT-COMPUTER. RM-COBOL.
      000900
      001000 DATA DIVISION.
      001100 FILE SECTION.
      001200
      100000 PROCEDURE DIVISION.
      100100
      100200 MAIN-LOGIC SECTION.
      100300 BEGIN.
      100400 DISPLAY " " LINE 1 POSITION 1 ERASE EOS.
      100500 DISPLAY "Hello world!" LINE 15 POSITION 10.
      100600 STOP RUN.
      100700 MAIN-LOGIC-EXIT.
      100800 EXIT.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:The trees have been saved by Teun · · Score: 1

      This shows where font size can be a form of cheating :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:The trees have been saved by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I used to program in Cobol and I used to measure my code in the number of feet of paper that the lineprinter would print instead of lines of code. Even the "Hello World" program would be more than 1 foot in length...

      In the 1401 days, there was a Fortran compiler that used 63 passes of compiler against the source text. When it was done the text was replaced with executable code.

      They decided to write a Cobol compiler. What else, they wrote it in Fortran.

      Hello world compiled in 30 minutes.

      When the 360's came out, they could compile Fortran before the last punch card fell in the hopper.

  14. I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by mark-t · · Score: 2

    I remember seeing ads for COBOL programmers in the careers section of the paper throughout the 1990's... with steadily increasing salary ranges, right up until about mid-October of 1999, where I was routinely seeing offers 80K per year or sometimes even more for new grads, it seemed that there were quite a few companies getting desperate to have COBOL programmers.

    Then, suddenly, within the space of only a week or two, the COBOL programmer ads stopped.

    By November, every last one of them was gone.

    I never saw another COBOL programmer wanted ad after that. Ever.

    1. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by ledow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because, once the Y2K bug was fixed, those systems that were already probably working just fine with 20-30 years of minimal maintenance and one huge spurge of Y2K updates will carry on running, most probably. Or people took it as a sign that maybe it's *not* a good idea to be relying on code that nobody on your staff can understand in order to run your business.

      See what happens come 2038. That'll be the interesting bit.

    2. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Now COBOL is basically used in years-old legacy code which is held together by the programming equivalent of duct tape. And nobody wants to touch that mess. Oh no.

    3. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by cje · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was once a COBOL programmer in the mid to late 1990s. For the sake of this story, we'll call him Jack. After years of being taken for granted and treated as a technological dinosaur by all the UNIX programmers and Client/Server programmers and website developers, Jack was finally getting some respect. He'd become a private consultant specializing in Year 2000 conversions. He was working short-term assignments for prestige companies, traveling all over the world on different assignments. He was working 70 and 80 and even 90 hour weeks, but it was worth it.

      Several years of this relentless, mind-numbing work had taken its toll on Jack. He had problems sleeping and began having anxiety dreams about the Year 2000. It had reached a point where even the thought of the year 2000 made him nearly violent. He must have suffered some sort of breakdown, because all he could think about was how he could avoid the year 2000 and all that came with it.

      Jack decided to contact a company that specialized in cryogenics. He made a deal to have himself frozen until March 15th, 2000. This was a very expensive process and totally automated. He was thrilled. The next thing he would know is he'd wake up in the year 2000; after the New Year celebrations and computer debacles; after the leap day. Nothing else to worry about except getting on with his life.

      He was put into his cryogenic receptacle, the technicians set the revive date, he was given injections to slow his heartbeat to a bare minimum, and that was that. The next thing that Jack saw was an enormous and very modern room filled with excited people. They were all shouting "I can't believe it " and "It's a miracle" and "He's alive ". There were cameras (unlike any he'd ever seen) and equipment that looked like it came out of a science fiction movie.

      Someone who was obviously a spokesperson for the group stepped forward. Jack couldn't contain his enthusiasm. "It is over?" he asked. "Is 2000 already here? Are all the millennial parties and promotions and crises all over and done with?"

      The spokesman explained that there had been a problem with the programming of the timer on Jack's cryogenic receptacle, it hadn't been year 2000 compliant. It was actually eight thousand years later, not the year 2000. But the spokesman told Jack that he shouldn't get excited; someone important wanted to speak to him.

      Suddenly a wall-sized projection screen displayed the image of a man that looked very much like Bill Gates. This man was Prime Minister of Earth. He told Jack not to be upset. That this was a wonderful time to be alive. That there was world peace and no more starvation. That the space program had been reinstated and there were colonies on the moon and on Mars. That technology had advanced to such a degree that everyone had virtual reality interfaces which allowed them to contact anyone else on the planet, or to watch any entertainment, or to hear any music recorded anywhere.

      "That sounds terrific," said Jack. "But I'm curious. Why is everybody so interested in me?"

      "Well," said the Prime Minister. "The year 10000 is just around the corner, and it says in your files that you know COBOL".

      (copypasta)

      --
      We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
    4. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nonsense, COBOL is still used in code that moves money and processes insurance claims. I've been a part of adding new features with newer technology to some of those systems even in the last year. Still going strong, still people maintaining code bases of COBOL and related languages such as RPG and very old JCL. And no, we don't put the COBOL and related parts on our resumes either 8D

      How many closet dinosaur-language slashdotters are there?

    5. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now COBOL is basically used in years-old legacy code which is held together by the programming equivalent of duct tape. And nobody wants to touch that mess. Oh no.

      While that's likely true, it's hardly unique to COBOL.

      Any codebase which is over, say, 5 years or more, is likely creaking under its own weight and nobody really knows how all of the parts work anymore.

      The software also likely runs day in, day out, 365 days/year, and does everything it has been developed to do. I've seen projects that try to replace such legacy systems -- after you've spent millions trying to write something new which does most of what you need, you discover that there's huge gaping holes in your coverage, and you're nowhere near where you'd need to be to replace it. Often, the project gets scrapped at that point as people realize you're never going to be a viable replacement.

      Hell, I knew a guy in the 90s who was retired from a company, and drawing his full pension, and working as a consultant at big $$$ rates to maintain the stuff he did before he got paid. All said and done, he was making about 4x in retirement what he made before he retired. They simply had no other people who could have possibly had the 30 years of experience he had on this mammoth system which ran on mainframes.

      Trying to get rid of that old creaky legacy code is nigh on impossible in some cases.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're not looking in the right places, here's 4,500 COBOL jobs http://www.indeed.com/q-Cobol-jobs.html . Major city newspapers list them also. Latest COBOL is COBOL 2002, which includes object orientation (already de facto standard since early 90s by the major compiler vendors), web and XML extensions, locale sensitive processing, cobol javabeans. The next version is shaping up already, dynamic tables, structured constants, ISO 8601:2000 dates. Propose new extensions for the next version of COBOL include aspect oriented programming. So, it's still a living growing language, and its main application is hardcore money moving and logistics in highly available fault tolerant systems with uptimes of decade or more.

    7. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not impossible, it's just expencive, and the low bid was probably made by some young programmer who doesn't apriciate the scope of the project.

      The trick is getting managment on the ball enopugh to identify people able to complete the project and willing to pay them, in spite of the fact that some other firm gave a lower quote.

    8. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not impossible, it's just expencive

      A high enough threshold for expensive can make for impossible.

      and the low bid was probably made by some young programmer who doesn't apriciate the scope of the project

      Not hardly. This was several senior people on both sides all trying to capture requirements and understand the scope. By necessity, their own senior people had to limit the scope of the initial project.

      Over time, however, you discover everything that the legacy software does ... and frequently discover that half of what they told you about the system is utterly false, and the other half was woefully incomplete. So, everything you've built in that depends on your understanding of uniqueness, scope, and content ... well, suddenly none of that is true (and quite possibly never was across the whole system).

      The trick is getting managment on the ball enopugh to identify people able to complete the project and willing to pay them, in spite of the fact that some other firm gave a lower quote.

      I question if you've been involved in replacing a legacy application with 30+ years of history and data in it.

      This isn't about people not being on board, or some lame-ass low bid by someone who didn't understand what they'd gotten into. Some of these systems have effectively been built up iteratively over decades, and are business critical. Replacing them can be completely non-trivial ... and, in some cases, almost insurmountable without massive investments.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hired another COBOL programmer, and have about 10 working for me on a government contract. We have a surprising number of COBOL public facing web applications running that you would never guess the majority of the application code is COBOL. Finding developers has however been extremely difficult in the past few years.

    10. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Silfax · · Score: 1

      Because, once the Y2K bug was fixed, those systems that were already probably working just fine with 20-30 years of minimal maintenance and one huge spurge of Y2K updates will carry on running, most probably. Or people took it as a sign that maybe it's *not* a good idea to be relying on code that nobody on your staff can understand in order to run your business. See what happens come 2038. That'll be the interesting bit.

      The COBOL stuff will still be cruising along in 2038, but just wait until the Y10K bug hits.

    11. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooCOBOL with XML? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    12. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard that one before.

    13. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're looking at want ads then you're not a programmer - either an agency will get you or you'll start a company. The want ads are for those people who know how to turn on a computer two times out of three.

    14. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From what you say, these systems seem more like the phone system than say some random application. In that case the idea of starting over from scratch and then switching over to the new version is a total pipe dream. You can't do it, the legacy stuff needs to keep running and integrated with the new stuff until such time that shutting it down is feasible.

    15. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what you say, these systems seem more like the phone system than say some random application.

      I can't speak to the specific nature of the systems for confidentiality reasons, but it's definitely not just a "random application". Quite possible the single largest and complex software landscape I've ever seen.

      In that case the idea of starting over from scratch and then switching over to the new version is a total pipe dream. You can't do it, the legacy stuff needs to keep running and integrated with the new stuff until such time that shutting it down is feasible.

      That was our experience, and we were only dealing with a slice of the data.

      Suffice it to say, the systems housed data that in some cases is now over 30 years old, was business/operational critical, and covered by several regulating agencies. So, continuity wasn't just important, it was a legal requirement.

      I think any sufficiently large, long-lived, and regulated corporation will have in-house apps which mostly defy any attempts to start from scratch.

    16. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of duct tape programming in any language, but there's also a lot where the system has been customised over decades into something which suits the needs of the users in ways that modern software wouldn't be.

      I work on something like that - every time there's a new director or CEO level person the first thing they ask is why haven't we replaced it with something from Microsoft or an "industry standard", and there has to be a study beofre they'll realise the cost of taking what's available and adapting it in the ways the staff need would be more than the company makes.

    17. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      go ahead and make fun of a language where you can specify precisely the size, ordering, alignment and endianess of data in memory and in storage, without "buffer overflows" or underruns. 90% of the problems we have with software is because of the sloppiness allowed by most "modern" languages.

    18. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I had to learn JCL for work (took a college class, paid for by my employer). JCL is a scripting language, like Perl, not a database language. It stands for Job Control Language. IINM I still have a thick, hardcover book on it. If you look it up on wikipedia, the article's editor compares it to DOS.

      COBOL would be more like NOMAD (I loved NOMAD).

      I'm unfamiliar to RPG.

      How many closet dinosaur-language slashdotters are there?

      IIRC it was the late '90s I learned JCL. I did hand-assemble machine code for the Z-80 around 1982. I wrote a battle tanks game for the TS-1000 by hand assembling the machine code. I had to do it by hand becaise as far as I knew, there were no assemblers for the TS-1000.

      I was pretty proud of that game; a two player game, each player could access the "keyboard" (or what passed for one on the TS-1000) at the same time. It was pretty much like the Tanks game you see today in Windows (top down view) only it ran in half a K instead of half a meg, on a 1 mHz chip instead of a 18,000 mHz chip.

      GOML?

    19. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by jacobsm · · Score: 1

      Actually the next COBOL date problem will occur at 23:53:48 on Sep 17, 2042. The IBM 8-byte hardware clock will have all its bits set to one and then wrap back to Jan 1, 1900.

    20. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by fishexe · · Score: 1

      It's not impossible, it's just expencive

      A high enough threshold for expensive can make for impossible.

      Exactly. More expensive than you can possibly afford is indistinguishable from impossible.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    21. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you haven't been looking hard; I see them quite frequently.

    22. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      That's how we'll bring down Skynet!

    23. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by bittmann · · Score: 1

      How many closet dinosaur-language slashdotters are there?

      Here's another, although my COBOL programs run on an AS/400 (a.k.a iSeries, system I, whatever the heck IBM has decided to call it today) instead of Really Big Iron. Some of the code that I wrote on a CISC-based System 38 over 2 decades ago is still running on a Power6 RISC-based system today, with nary a recompile involved.

      It's hard to argue with "works".

    24. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the environment in which some of these systems evolved is dynamic. I once worked in a European paper mill maintaining their systems.

      No one fully understood them not due to lack of professionalism but due to 30 years of Legislation changes etc, in order to replace them you'ed haved to understand current rpactices , edge cases and at least 30 years of accounting, laws and phb practices.

    25. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      within my company there are some internal vacancies for COBOL programmers, they need about 10 of them. Compared to my current job the work actually seemed interesting, so i asked an older colleague if i should look into it further, his suggestion? "start updating your resume"

      The company i am starting with next year also has a COBOL group, they gave it the most brilliant euphemism for a name "proven technologies"

      So there still is work, but upon closer examination, i would have to be mental to go down that road

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    26. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      ...and i would bet IBM would get a Federal Bailout to deal with the lawsuits.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    27. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Another Assange on Rising.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    28. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      iSeries and pSeries have merged into IBM Power Sever platform, or something of the sort.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    29. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of Ada? (yeah, I know it's young)

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    30. Re:I thought COBOL basically died after Y2K. by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      yes indeed, hardly used anymore though

  15. If it works it doesn't need fixing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THere's going to be lots of comments about how old COBOL is and it should be replaced for something modern - but it still works and there's some huge systems run by huge companies. It still works and it still does things better than other languages.

    1. Re:If it works it doesn't need fixing by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      So does anyone know of any recent, new projects that were started in COBOL? Any businesses that began operating in the last decade that has developed business software in COBOL? Information like that would be very interesting. It's fine to defend COBOL legacy applications in favor of replacing them, but where's the new development?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  16. Re:Oh My... by CyberDong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear God, I'm old.

  17. Laugh it up, kids! by ewg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Laugh it up, kids! Your favorite language is next.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
    1. Re:Laugh it up, kids! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      J2EE certainly is the COBOL of the OO world. Just as Perl 5 is the COBOL of scripting languages.

    2. Re:Laugh it up, kids! by damien_kane · · Score: 2

      J2EE certainly is the COBOL of the OO world. Just as Perl 5 is the COBOL of scripting languages.

      I thought that ooCOBOL is the COBOL of the OO world...

    3. Re:Laugh it up, kids! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      No! Not C++!

  18. "Celebrates"? by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is "Celebrates" the correct word to use in this context?

    1. Re:"Celebrates"? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      It would be more sensitive to have a exhibit to commemorate the victims of COBOL and it's eventual glorious defeat.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:"Celebrates"? by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      I think it's supposed to be "commemorates," like when we commemorate Pearl Harbour Day.. Ironically, both those anniversaries fall within a day of each other, and both shall equally live in infamy...

    3. Re:"Celebrates"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes

    4. Re:"Celebrates"? by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is "Celebrates" the correct word to use in this context?

      Yes.

      It is 1960 and your Fortune 500 clients want programs they can read.

      Programs they can trust.

      Their area of expertise is corporate accounting, business methods and procedures.

      Practices which have evolved over hundreds of years and practices which the newly minted mainframe programmer is not going to master overnight.

      COBOL syntax has often been criticized for its verbosity. However, proponents are quick to note that this was an intentional part of the language design and considered by many to be one of the COBOL's strengths. One of the design goals of COBOL was for COBOL code to be readable and understandable to non-programmers such as managers, supervisors and users. This is why COBOL has a very English-like syntax and structural elements--including: nouns, verbs, clauses, sentences, sections, and divisions.
      Consequently, COBOL is considered by at least one source to be "the most readable, understandable and self-documenting programming language in use today...." Not only does this readability generally assist the maintenance process but the older a program gets the more valuable this readability becomes."
      Additionally, traditional COBOL is a simple language with a limited scope of function (with no pointers, no user-defined types, and no user-defined functions), encouraging a straightforward coding style. This has made it well-suited to its primary domain of business computing--where the program complexity lies in the business rules that need to be encoded rather than sophisticated algorithms or data structures. And because the standard does not belong to any particular vendor, programs written in COBOL are highly portable. The language can be used on a wide variety of hardware platforms and operating systems. And the rigid hierarchical structure restricts the definition of external references to the Environment Division, which simplifies platform changes.
      COBOL

    5. Re:"Celebrates"? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      This makes it a pain for programmers and still unreadable for managers.

      It is the sort of compromise that makes something no one likes.

    6. Re:"Celebrates"? by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps in the sense of 'holding a wake'.

  19. Sweet by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    They also announced a COBOL App Store so users could easily find and install useful applications. The inaugural app was "Angry Birds" for the Honeywell 200. Ordering this app will have a box with the punch cards delivered to your house, and a complete installation manual. The second offering was a fart app for the UNIVAC series.

    1. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

    2. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that's what's we've come to - if you program a simple game for an iPhone then you're respected more than if you program applications to keep insurance companies running.

    3. Re:Sweet by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      Given the bad publicity that insurance companies--especially medical insurance companies--have had lately, that's really only to be expected.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    4. Re:Sweet by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Nah, make an iPhone app that fully implements all business process rules of a particular insurance company, and you'll be respected for it.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  20. Skipped a few... by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    By the 1970s, COBOL had become the preferred programming language for commercial data processing. Since then, Java, C #, and other languages have taken over many of its functions.

    They slightly skipped a few things between COBOL and C#, lol.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  21. Why?? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Celebrate COBOL? Why? Ewwwww...

    Coming up next, celebrations of MS-DOS, Lotus Notes, and the Mac?

    1. Re:Why?? by Rary · · Score: 1

      Celebrate COBOL? Why? Ewwwww...

      Coming up next, celebrations of MS-DOS, Lotus Notes, and the Mac?

      Because, unlike those other things, businesses are still using COBOL. ;)

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    2. Re:Why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll find that Notes is still used quite a bit as well.

    3. Re:Why?? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      i so wish that was true.

      Compared to working with lotus notes, outlook seems like a heavenly savior, the guy responsible for notes should be shot

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    4. Re:Why?? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's used - by people forced to use that pile of trash.

      But it's nothing to celebrate about.

    5. Re:Why?? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  22. FORTRAN .GT. COBOL by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

    C ey!! FORTRAN is older (and cooler) than COBOL
    FORTRAN .GT. 50
    FORTRAN = 54.0 + ABIT
    COBOL = WHIP + R + SNAP + R
    STOP
    END

  23. Re:Oh My... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Especially if it was among the first real programming languages you learned

    Oh crap, it was number 3 for me -- BASIC, Pascal, COBOL.

    and you can still remember what COBOL stands for without looking it up (guilty)!

    COmmon Business Oriented Language -- do I get a cookie?

    Crap, I am old.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  24. Re:Oh My... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Somehow that line just doesn't have the same ring coming from a 7-digit UID.

    Contrary to popular believe, # of digits in Slashdot ID is only loosely correlated to beard-length.

    I'm sure we've got a fair few neck-beards with 7 digit IDs.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  25. FORTRAN! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I guess I just need to go out and learn Fortran for the old school trifecta!

    I know my first year CS they taught Pascal, and then changed standards to C the following year. Thanks for that. COBOL was, and probably still is taught for those students with high pain thresholds.

    I don't actually program for a living (though I use scraps here and there), so I don't have all the new sexier languages. I know the few times I have applied for a new positions, having those languages and stuff like Assembly, etc... on my resume managers look at you like you have two heads or something. Then are somehow unimpressed you don't have any experience in whatever trendy new language they are smoking. Rarely are they looking for the guy that says programing is programing, I'll learn it. They want some cheap code jockey that has been currently using it in his job and can start hacking right away. Just as well really, probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway by the sounds of it.

    1. Re:FORTRAN! by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      So true. I'm glad my boss doesn't have that philosophy. Recently there was a bunch of work that needed to be done in ActionScript 3 for a project in another department and my boss came to me knowing that even though I'd never used the language, I'm a good programmer and I'd figure it out. Mind you, you'd have to at least be familiar with OOP, but that's not exactly new or trendy any more...

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:FORTRAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do learn Fortran. It is actually by now a rather pleasant language to work with, as long as you do *not* try to process strings.
      Instead, it's all about complex, multidimensional mathematics and (shared-memory) parallelization which can be extremely useful - or not, depending on your situation.

  26. Today's Slashdot Fortune by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

    COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

    1. Re:Today's Slashdot Fortune by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I wonder if he knew that the system that cut his checks was almost certianly running on COBOL.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  27. Wedged by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    in between the History of Cardboard Armor and X-Ray based shoe store gages.

  28. Thus spake the master programmer by thodelu · · Score: 4, Funny

    In The Tao of Programming: The Tao gave birth to machine language. Machine language gave birth to the assembler. The assembler gave birth to the compiler. Now there are ten thousand languages. Each language has its purpose, however humble. Each language expresses the Yin and Yang of software. Each language has its place within the Tao. But do not program in COBOL if you can avoid it.

  29. Mainframes = Non-disposable code by xanthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, it is real easy to get all snarky about COBOL. I have always hated it even though it was a popular language when I was in school (late 70's). My CS department had three separate non-overlapping courses you could take.

    The thing is that just about any programmer, even if they don't know COBOL, could go in and change it. COBOL is readable. The record based functionality is simple to comprehend. Something written 30 years ago is still running because there is nothing wrong with it. It does what its supposed to do. It was the perfect solution to the most important business problems of its day, and that legacy is why it is still around while other languages of its era are not.

    Should new programs be written in it? HELL NO!!!! The problem set to which COBOL applies is pretty well solved. The new problems require new solutions.

    -Xanthos

    --
    Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
    1. Re:Mainframes = Non-disposable code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The new problems require new solutions.

      Absolutely. But it won't happen so soon. People might laugh at COBOL, they might laugh at mainframes and the (to them) ancient way of centralised computing. But most of them are actually proponents of the ressurgence of this kind of mentality. Cloud computing, XML everywhere, AJAX, all those web applications and so on. It's actually just the return of the 60s in disguise. Well, except that now we have those pesky smartphones and tablets. Great ...

    2. Re:Mainframes = Non-disposable code by Beetjebrak · · Score: 1

      ALGOL solved a lot of problems back in its day and still has a legacy visible in just about any programming language in use today, even if ALGOL itself isn't around anymore (to my knowledge).

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    3. Re:Mainframes = Non-disposable code by LordRobin · · Score: 2

      Well, gee... I must be imagining the over 100 new COBOL programs I've written over the past seven years. You see, I do this for a living, and make a pretty decent living at that. I work for an insurance company. The policy and billing management systems are implemented in COBOL on an IBM mainframe, and if we want to keep pace with our competitors, new development is essential. Recently we upgraded the web interface external clients use to access our billing data. While that involved a lot of web design and Java programming, at its core was a set of brand new COBOL programs that fetch the data from the legacy system. (And send it back as XML. Yeah, COBOL can do that.)

      I graduated from college in 1989, and didn't study COBOL because everyone told me it was a dead language. When I entered the job market in 1991, every job opening I found required COBOL experience. I was lucky to get a job with a consulting outfit that was willing to train me, and that was the beginning of an 18-year career programming COBOL, CICS, and occasionally DB2. Throughout that career, I would hear again and again that COBOL was a dinosaur language and was going away. Meanwhile, I continued to design and code new programs and systems in this supposedly dead language.

      So you'll have to forgive me if I don't worry too much about the "death" of COBOL.

      ------RM

    4. Re:Mainframes = Non-disposable code by jonwil · · Score: 1

      You arent writing a new system in COBOL. You are adding to an existing system.

      The OPs point was that the only reason to write new COBOL code is if you have existing COBOL code you need to work with.

    5. Re:Mainframes = Non-disposable code by LordRobin · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it depends on your definition of the word "system". In recent years, I've designed, coded and implemented sets of new COBOL programs and CICS screens that automate processes that were still being done by hand. To me, that's a new system, especially since the user sees this development as something brand-new, not a addition to an existing set of screens. However, at the core, these new programs and screens have to interface with legacy files to manipulate data. If you require a system to be entirely new, even down to the data, you might disagree that this is a "new" system. But as far as the users are concerned, it's new.

      ------RM

  30. COBOL's Mummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The centerpiece of the exhibit will be a limited time viewing of the mummified remains of Rear Admiral Grace Hopper - currently scheduled for one nanosecond.

  31. Good to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually liked working with COBOL in college. We were gearing up for the Y2K issue and our instructors figured it would be good to have on the resume. It was interesting to see how people approached problems in such a verbose language.

    Personally I've never used COBOL in the wild, but I did pick up some interesting tricks and an appreciation for looking at data differently. So I have applied tricks I learned for COBOL in other places and it's been very helpful.

  32. What a good feeling by trollertron3000 · · Score: 0

    As a programmer this gave me a huge smile and a feeling of happiness. So awesome seeing the work of legends in the proper light, shows to the public. Everyday we stand on the shoulders of these giants. If I could go back and say thank you I would. They changed the world.

    --
    Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
  33. Celibrate COBOL? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
    Obviously nobody at the Smithsonian ever had to write a program in COBOL!

    I have a story. I once worked in a factory where the computer systems were written in COBOL, and it, to put it politely, sucked. We needed data to manage our jobs in the shop and buying requests to fill our orders but there was no way to get the data the way we needed it. After surviving a layoff I inherited a PC with a 3270 terminal emulator card and proceeded to reprogram the board to extract information off of the on-line CICS system so I could reprocess it the way we needed it. I created a callable library of routines to manage these extractions. Once I had the basics for extracting information by mapping the terminal output to data fields I could then instruct it to page forward through each application and extract the information to a floppy, memory (didn't have much), or print it. I had no direct link to the corporate database system, only the ability to scrape information off of the virtual console and reorganize it as I chose to do.

    With that library I then spent half of an afternoon using that 'tool' to build an application which extracted a recursive bill of materials from the system for any product I wanted to build. It took less than 4 hours to get the proof of concept done and start using it. My manager saw how effective I had become in doing my job and asked my secret, and I showed him, the report the the Data Processing Department had been telling us for seven years that they could not do. They had told me it was impossible.

    Once my boss saw the report I handed him he marched back into the DP managers office and demanded that they build the same program for everyone to use, throwing that report on his desk. That same report, with direct access to the database, written in COBOL, took over 6 Man-Months to write. With my little PC and virtual-console library I did it in under 4 hours using Turbo Pascal. Which language do you want to program in?

    1. Re:Celibrate COBOL? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      And which report are they STILL using today? Most likely not the one in the "for real" dead languge Pascal.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Celibrate COBOL? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

      Turbo Pascal and Microsoft BASIC were the only choices back then, other than assembler. At least with Pascal you could add in some mixed assembler to work with interrupts and low level BIOS logic. Try that with MS BASIC from that era. C compilers for the PC came out over the following year but they were a little unstable. I bought 'both' books on the C Language in preparation for some real programming, and later when it came out I bought my first C compiler (Borland Turbo C) for the PC and rewrote the library. Pascal and C are fairly equal on what you could do back then, but C++ certainly spelled the demise of Pascal as it seriously lost favour.

    3. Re:Celibrate COBOL? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "That same report, with direct access to the database, written in COBOL, took over 6 Man-Months to write. With my little PC and virtual-console library I did it in under 4 hours using Turbo Pascal. Which language do you want to program in? "

      The one that requires a six month contract instead of one day from a temp?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  34. Kiddies hate it because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are snarky about COBOL because it is still around and more akin to BASIC than to true elitist languages like C/C++. And they hate to admit but it doesn't matter what you code with as long as it works.

  35. Personal history of programming by Beetjebrak · · Score: 0

    My first language was Commodore BASIC (v2), which tainted me heavily as a programmer. The second was 6502 Assembly, which felt like the shades falling from my eyes back in my C64 days even though it was difficult to get anything done. Third up was Visual Basic 5 and VBA years later.. yes.. I'm guilty of cobbling nasty converters in MS Access but I'm hopefully somewhat redeemed by the fact that my VBA-crap wer exclusively one-off preprocessors before larger imports into a real RDBMS. Then I went on to PHP, which is interesting because it teaches bad habits if you let it but doesn't require them per se.. and right now C++ is slowly pulling my nails out.

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
  36. Don't forget about Admiral Hopper by wandazulu · · Score: 2

    Cobol might be a pretty easy joke for obsolescence, but remember that Cobol was written by a woman in a time where the industry was far more male dominated than it is today.

    Though I've never programmed in Cobol, it made a big impression on me as a kid to show that anybody could program a computer, or use a computer to create something cool.

    1. Re:Don't forget about Admiral Hopper by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Because if a woman could do anyone can!
      Wow that doesn't come out right.
      Grace Hopper got an early admission to Vassar at the age of 17! She would have gotten in at the age of 16 but her Latin scores where too low..
      She got degrees in physics and mathematics at Vassar, Masters in both at Yale, then a PH.d. in Mathematics from Yale.
      She was not just anybody. Frankly she would make most us look like low grade morons. If she was 30 today Google, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, and Facebook would all be after her. She was a brilliant human being.
      So what should we learn from her? Well I have to wonder how much we have lost over the years. How many Grace Hoopers never got the chance to contribute the way she did because "girls" are not supposed good at math and science?
      Or to put it this way. Freaking brilliant people are not limited to just men.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Don't forget about Admiral Hopper by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Cobol might be a pretty easy joke for obsolescence, but remember that Cobol was written by a woman in a time where the industry was far more male dominated than it is today.

      This was surely an impressive achievement. And for 1959, COBOL was surely an impressive language. It's no disrespect to Hopper to dis COBOL based on the standards of the '70s, or '80s, or '00s, however. That's a dis to the folks who should know better, and yet continue implementing the damn thing.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  37. Re:Oh My... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that an acronym for Ruby On Rails?

  38. Cobol Programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cobol Programmers know why women hate periods....

    1. Re:Cobol Programmers by CouteauTM · · Score: 1

      LOL So true.

  39. Also a lot of banks by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    should be included into the Smithsonian! They're still using COBOL!
    Unluckily, this is not a joke.

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:Also a lot of banks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COBOL is the only language that prefers decimal arithmetic to binary. This also applies to the computer hardware used. Banks depend on this to prevent rounding errors, like 1/10th as a repeating binary fraction. This is not a joke!

    2. Re:Also a lot of banks by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      In the Enterprise Java world, finance and accounting is done with java.math.BigDecimal. The result ends up being nearly as verbose and non-algebraic as COBOL arithmetic. But we do have control over things like rounding rules, precision and scale and so on, in a very standardized way.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  40. Along with vampires and zombies by Migala77 · · Score: 1

    Disaster? Hardly. Let's see where "insert your favorite language here" is after 50 years. A recent Gartner study found COBOL in about 75% of enterprise business processes still today.

    Just because it won't die, doesn't mean it's a success.

    1. Re:Along with vampires and zombies by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      If a bacterial infection had managed to infect 200 billion hosts over 50 years, and was adding 2 billion new hosts per year, you'd consider that to be pretty successful wouldn't you?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:Along with vampires and zombies by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      According to nature laws, anything that can't be killed is a winner. Probably you should read more darwin and less Java.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  41. Re:Oh My... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Also, there are probably folks with 7 digit UIDs that used to have 4 digit UIDs, but loss them for some reason. Plus, hell I was almost fifty when slashdot started.

  42. Re:Oh My... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    I only have stubble - it is getting to be more grey than dark brown every day though.

  43. OO COBOL by tm2b · · Score: 2

    Did they talk about the object-oriented version of COBOL? It's named ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL.

    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  44. COBOL Compilers by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Despite all (justified!) COBOL bashing, you'll have to concede that a 50 years old COBOL compiler could (had to) run on a VERY modest amount of RAM... something that isn't immediately obvious, considering that compilers of current languages are true resource hogs in comparison.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:COBOL Compilers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      considering that compilers of current languages are true resource hogs in comparison.

      In many cases this is due to significantly better optimizations produced by the compilers, however. E.g. in case of C++, modern compilers do full program optimizations - that's millions of lines of code for large products - analyzing code that is sometimes removed from each other by multiple levels of function calls to aggressively inline, do smart register allocation tricks etc, which give very noticeable performance improvements. Compilers of COBOL age (not just for COBOL, but for other stuff) were much more blunt in comparison.

  45. Re:Oh My... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Cyberdong,

    You think YOU'RE old?

    - God

  46. Why would anybody celebrate COBOL? by fishexe · · Score: 0

    From what I hear, 1 year is too damn long, let alone 50. Hey The Atlantic, are you sure you didn't mean "recognizes" or "observes" or hell, maybe "mourns"?

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  47. Cobol Rocks! by aslvstr · · Score: 1
    Object-Oriented Cobol Rocks^2!

    Or should I say: COMPUTE Object-Oriented-COBOL = Rocks * Rocks.

    P.S. The code would have been ALL CAPS, but the Slashdot filter wouldn't allow me to put in the code PROPERLY! LOL!

  48. COBOL 77 & 85 std. was 2nd language I learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since 1982, I've worked with these languages (& I am literally 'dating' myself here on each one, as I learned them first time &/or used them on the job):

    BASIC (1982)
    COBOL (1985 77/85 std.'s)
    ASSEMBLY (1991 x86 MASM/TASM)
    C (1991)
    PASCAL (1992)
    C++ (1992)
    FORTRAN (1993)
    VB (1994)
    ASP.NET (2003 - better ISAPI really with garbage cleanup run server-side, faster than std./orig. ASP)
    VB.NET (2003 - love it for building intranet apps)
    C# (2003 - This is MS' "near-equivalent" to JAVA (which runs everywhere))
    JAVA (2008 - I like that it runs on so much hardware/platforms)
    ---
    SQL (1994 & I have been using it professionally, & extensively w/ nearly ALL of the languages listed above (as it's a massively FLEXIBLE business programming tool alongside relational databasing))

    Personally?

    I like PASCAL (Delphi 7) & C++ (MSVC or Borland C++ Builder 6) the best of the lot (both are VERY fast buildtimes nowadays & in the past, & have incredible strings & math processing power/speed)!

    I respect JAVA for "running everywhere" (even if it's slower than the others)...

    HOWEVER:

    SQL is the main "tool of my trade" over time for work + with nearly ALL of the languages listed above... SQL: It's amazing, & fairly easy (well, yes, I have had HUGE & tough queries/queries-on-huge queries pop up now & again, lol, so... take that "easy" with a "grain of salt").

    "COBOL, FORTRAN, and Pascal separated IT programmers (and staff) from middle managers and office workers that today think writing an Access VBA makes them a .net developer" - by Bucc5062 (856482) on Thursday December 16, @12:14PM (#34575534)

    IT/IS/MIS/CIS: It's "what I do" for 17++ yrs. now, professionally (been programming a LOT longer than that though) ...

    The languages you're quoted about above?

    Those were my introduction to "STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING", via academia @ first too (which is good, you learn it "properly" for a foundation) & PASCAL later on the job, with a LOT of VB (this was my gateway to professional db programming, Delphi was next, into C++ & .NET (currently)).

    APK

    P.S.=> Still, even today's "Object-Oriented Programming"/OOP world? Hey - I also still use structured programming concepts - you have to imo, because sometimes, you don't ALWAYS NEED an object, & the extra RAM they cost (e.g. - 572 bytes per each newly instanced object in VB6) to instance them is all - Especially if the app's a "smallish" one, lines-wise (sub-1/2 million lines)... apk

  49. Re:Oh My... by SLot · · Score: 1

    n00b

  50. COBOL vs. Data Entry by c0d3r · · Score: 1

    There is a fine line between Cobol and Data entry. I wonder what the data / code ratio is for cobol vs. other languages.

  51. Re:Oh My... by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    COmmon Business Oriented Language -- do I get a cookie?

    no mister Stoddart, but if you play nice at the bingo table and dont start throwing the cards around again you can have an extra cup of apple-sauce with your evening-meds.

    Now hurry to the TV area, matlock starts in ten minutes!

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  52. You would be surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know that COBOL would outperform your MR by a large margin, don't you?

    Map-Reduce is fine for searching and retrieving "a few" records from distributed databases, but it is nearly useless for processing (almost) every record in those databases. Coincidentally, that is precisely the strongpoint of COBOL.

    Don't dismiss old technology just because you don't have experience with it. There really isn't much new in IT since the seventies. Hypes come and go but the science is almost unchanged.

  53. COBOL was not a "disaster" by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Yes, compared to today's languages (or even languages of the '80's), COBOL is a joke. If it were released today, it would be quite correctly derided as a pathetic attempt at "Natural Language Programming." You'd earn a lousy grade if you put it together as part of a language design class.

    However, waayyyy back in the Stone Ages of computing when it was developed, it was a stroke of absolute genius. Combined with FORTRAN, it made computers useful for both scientific and business work, and freed programming from the tyranny of rare, and highly-trained, programmers; a reasonably intelligent schmoe could be taught programming in a relatively short span of time. We've learned a LOT since then, but beating up on COBOL for being a bad language compared with the languages of today is like beating up on a PC-XT for not having a 1TB hard drive.

  54. Off topic, but maybe useful - COBOL on Debian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OpenCOBOL works fine on Debian.... once you have sanded down these rough bits:

    Edit ld.so:
    sudo gedit /etc/ld.so.conf

                    and add
                    '/usr/local/lib'
                    to the file.
                    eg:
                                    include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf /usr/local/lib

    Create symbolic link to ncurses:
    sudo ln /lib/libncurses.so.5.7 /lib/libncurses.so

    Re-run ld config:
    sudo ldconfig

    Now you can compile the COBOL source:

    cobc -x COBOL1.COB

    and run: ./COBOL1

  55. Re:Oh My... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    I turned 17 an hour ago - and I immediately deciphered it - WTH am I supposed to say?

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.