Java Apps Have the Most Flaws, Cobol the Least

dcblogs writes "An analysis of 745 applications for violations of good architectural and coding practices found that Java applications had the most problems and Cobol-built systems, the least. Some 365 million lines of code were analyzed by Cast Software to assess 'technical debt,' or the cost to fix the violations. Java was calculated at $5.42 per line of code, while Cobol did best at $1.26. Cobol code had the least number of violations because programmers 'have been beating on it for 30 years,' said Cast. As far as Java goes, 'there are many people going into Java now that really don't have strong computer science backgrounds,' said its chief scientist, Bill Curtis."

Comments

so?

[masternerdguy]

That COBOL code has been maintained for like 30 years, it would naturally be rock solid by now.

Re:so?

[laejoh]

COBOL is written ALL CAPS. That's why it's more stable. The characters don't fall down so easily when they are ALL CAPS. Java has to many funny characters like { and }. They have no stable base and tilt over to easily. Compare { with PERFORM and } with END-PERFORM and you know enough!

Re:so?

[ErroneousBee]

COBOL has older applications, and the only way to become an old application is to start with a sound architecture. So they are probably just looking at a survivorship bias issue than a language or programmer experience issue.

It would be nice to see application age and programmer experience controlled for.

Re:so?

[Anonymous Coward]

COBOL also is very inexpressive and requires more lines of code to do the same thing, so saying "dollars per line of code" is not very useful.

In fact if you ever hear the words "per line of code" you can just assume that you're talking to someone who doesn't actually write code.

Re:so?

[DesScorp]

COBOL is a good language for what it's intended for... business software... but Comp Sci people didn't like it because it wasn't "elegant", which is pretty much an argument of style, anyway. I liked COBOL just fine in college, and it made sense for its intended purpose. I find that most of the people that mock COBOL have never coded in it. It's a solid language, well-liked by those that use it. If you're a programmer and you don't like it, well, then I'd advise not taking a job programming it. Plenty of other C/C++/Java, etc jobs out there.

Re:so?

[johnlcallaway]

I wrote COBOL code for 15 years, and agree 100%. I could churn out complex multi-level reports in half a day that WORKED because I had been doing it so long and had a method. My only complaint with COBOL was that it didn't support recursion or dynamic arrays. Most complaints were that you had to type a lot, but what most people didn't realize is that good data design up front allowed for the use of commands like 'move corresponding' and 'add corresponding' to make the actual program code simpler. I've noticed with modern coders some of the same tendency to make the data definitions fit the code instead of the other way around.

I now write in Java, and spend most of my days rewriting very poorly written C++ into Java. Not because C++ isn't a good language, but because the people that wrote the code had no idea how to write code, let alone C++. Overly-complex designs for simple tasks, using flags instead of try/catch blocks for error handling, and using codes (i.e. if flag = 1) instead of enumerators or constants to make it legible.

I also know that my code three years ago is nowhere as 'good' as the code I write now. It's easy to teach someone how an if..else statement works, or the difference between static and class objects. But to help them to understand principles, like when to use static or class methods or objects, they really need to write code for awhile and get a grasp on the concepts. And as I write more and more, I learn new little things. Plus the language itself advances. After about 10 years of coding in Java, I'm pretty decent at it now. But I'd say my first 2-3 years resulted in some pretty bad code, and the next 5 some that was OK, but could be improved. I still look at code I do today with a critical eye, always wondering what I could do to make it easier to write and maintain and more efficient.

I had a financial engineer come up to me a few months ago that didn't understand why he just shouldn't use static methods and objects for everything. He read the book, he knew how to write code. What was all the fuss about anyway?

I just sighed and did my best to explain to him in 15 minutes what I have learned over the last decade. I think he understood as he walked away, but his boss is not my boss, and I don't have to support his code. The rest of the financial engineers use SAS, so I probably should care since I'm sure I'll be the one to support it when he leaves....

But it's probably easier for me to fix it then than to try and beat good coding practices into him now. I've got my own schedules to keep....

Re:so?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes, its difficult to keep up with the suicide rate.

Cobol programmers "beating on it for 30 years"

[Anonymous Coward]

So... masturbation makes you a better programmer? That explains a lot about guys living in their moms' basements.

Technical Debt

[Nittle]

In today's agile world, who gets time to maintain technical debt. How does paying technical debt ever give your app that new feature that your marketing department is pushing for -- to have out by tomorrow. I think the rules have changed in how companies push their software development organizations to deliver software. That may be the biggest reason that quality is different than it was. That and the other programs have been worked on forever.

Conclusion...

[Anonymous Coward]

this is no assessment of Java vs Cobol, but of seasoned programmers vs half-skilled newbies.

Re:Conclusion...

[tbannist]

Much as I dislike Microsoft, I don't think that's actually the only issue. There has been many changes that would impact code quality over the years. Setting aside the differences in language construction. There has been a broadening of the pool of people who write software, and many people have learned "how to program" so they could get a job. It seems likely that in the 1970s if you were in computers and programming it was because you enjoyed it and took pride in it. Since the 90s, there has been an influx of people for whom it is "just a job". That alone would see a substantial decline in quality, however, on top of that the "newbies" are mostly being taught how to start programming in Java now. That means for most programmers, if you are learning Cobol it's not your first language. That means you can expect the average level of experience of Cobol programmers to be much higher than that of Java programmers.

Those two factors might be enough to explain most of the difference by themselves, but there are still a host of other factors that could contribute to this result, for example, hobbyist (as opposed to professional) programmers are much more likely to create Java projects than Cobol projects because Java resources (such as do-it-yourself) tutorials are more commonly available than the equivalent Cobol resources.

COBOL

[LtGordon]

I would imagine that the reason Cobol code has so few bugs is because the vast majority of it was written years ago and any bugs that might have been there have been fixed already. I'd be more interested in a study that compares only new code that hasn't had the benefit of years of maintenance and eyeballs.

Re:COBOL

[laejoh]

Let me, an old Cobol fart, just answer by repeating: "As if requirements never change".

Re:COBOL

[tajribah]

Besides, if you have a 1000-line Java program and a 10000-line COBOL program doing the same task, which is going to have less bugs per line? :-)

Re:COBOL

[NonUniqueNickname]

Old COBOL Fart, we who are about to scrum salute you!

Re:COBOL

[Nutria]

Having programmed both in COBOL and C, it's my experience that COBOL is less buggy since it doesn't encourage Cleverness, but has rich features like 88 Level conditionals and built-in sorting and reporting. Not to mention structured programming that haters think don't exist.

Java apps are probably most widespread

[coder111]

If you look at enterprise world (which is what they analyzed) you'll see that either Java or C# are most widely used. Which means most new/inexperienced/crap developers get to work on these projects in Java and C#. Which again means most mistakes & hacks & silliness. All the speciality stuff using exotic languages gets better people. And cobol applications in use today are either really mature and good quality or discarded years ago.

There are very few good team leads and architects who actually stand their ground and demand both quality from developers and resources to do quality work from their managers... And there are probably fewer managers who understand that quality needs time & resources...

--Coder

range of capability, expression, and process

[Speare]

Sure, it's easy to conclude that teams writing COBOL programs have more development discipline, but there's also something to be said about the overall complexity of the languages. There are huge differences in the range of capability in the core language, the range of different expressions to solve the same problem, and the range of handling different modes of process (serial, concurrent, federated, etc.).

Coding Practices?

[Murdoch5]

The only real coding practices that mean anything are:

1) Does the program work
2) Can the program be maintained
3) Can a normal developer understand your program
4) Is your program acceptably bug free

When you start breaking down coding practices into line formatting and variable names and etc... etc... etc.... your no longer programming your doing document management and personally I'm not going to write my embedded systems firmware in word so let me program.

Re:Coding Practices?

[gstoddart]

I SWEAR I'm not making this up: a manager once criticized my code as being too terse

And, as a developer who has done code reviews for a long time ... I've had to tell other developers the exact same thing. Because it was too fscking terse.

In our shop, you needed a comment before your function describing what it was for, magic numbers were strictly verboten, and we expected function/variable names to actually have some descriptive value so we can tell what they're for, and anything non-obvious needed a comment.

We'd still get functions with three-letter names which were meaningless, variables like "b1" and "b2" which conveyed no information whatsoever, and generally crap code. Those guys didn't last long because they couldn't understand why their code was unusable in a production codebase.

"people have to read and understand it before they can modify it". He saw no irony in that statement.

Maybe because there was no irony? I've seen a bunch of young coders who claim that their code is so elegant and obvious as to be easily maintained. I've also shoved the same code back in their face after 3 months and said "fix this", which got me a "what's it do"?

If you think there should have been irony in his statement, maybe your code isn't very good.

Always assume that someone half as clever as you think you are is going to be fixing that code with great time pressures and in the middle of a bad day ... because quite likely, even if it's your own code and you fixing it, that will be true. People who act otherwise are likely a liability in the long run.

I have seen far too many coders who thought they wrote clever code, but after six months couldn't follow their own logic in order to be able to debug it. If the original author can't debug it, WTF is anybody else going to do with it besides rewrite it? (Something I've had to do before.)

Re:Java == Training Wheels

[masternerdguy]

Operating systems are also training wheels since they provide a layer between the hardware and the programmer. Not to mention the user, so many people just use computers without learning how to code in that machine's unique punch card based assembly language. I say why have operating systems at all.

What the programs do...

[jellomizer]

Most COBAL applications while do a lot of processing they are not required to do much in terms of advanced coding. We expect more out of Java Programs then we do with Cobal. Java Apps need a cool fancy UI that handles every users whim. While the COBOL app has a menu you type that Item fill those fields and the record and hit process and wait.

If we were to one for one recreate those COBOL apps in Java without anything new. I will bet those Java Apps will run just as well.

Re:Java == Training Wheels

[masternerdguy]

You'd also need to engineer the trees, including designing the proteins, etc. It's like Sagan said, you must first invent the universe.

Re:Cobol is still being used?

[Lawrence_Bird]

COBOL is probably still the largest installed codebase and remains the behind the scenes 'what makes business go' Mock if you want but can you say any of the modern darling languages will have major league applications still running 30 or 40 years from now? People also mock Fortran, yet it still rocks and has been updated to include many 'modern' features and were it not for crowd bias would be a great choice for many applications.
Ref: here

SQL too

[tepples]

SQL is also traditionally written in ALL CAPS, yet look at all the SQL injection vulnerabilities that have been used to break into high-profile web sites.

Re:SQL too

[toadlife]

SQL injections typically affect php apps, and php has syntax somewhat similar to java. Therefore the GP's theory remains solid footing.

Re:SQL too

[S.O.B.]

SQL injection attacks can affect any web based application in any technology so long as user input is not escaped or is used non-prepared statements.

PHP is no more or less vulnerable.

Re:SQL too

[CastrTroy]

The mysql_escape_string, mysql_real_escape_string, mysql_i_mean_it_this_time_escape_string thing probably has a lot to do with the sql injection vulnerabilities, not to mention that before mysqli, you couldn't even use prepared statements. That and the number of php "tutorials" on the web that don't even mention mysql_real_escape_string or prepared statements, leads to PHP being particularly bad. Add that to the fact that PHP is what is avaiable on cheap web hosts, and that it's the language of choice for many newbie programmers, and you go a recipe for disaster. The SQL injection problem isn't limited to PHP, but PHP probably has the biggest problem with it.

Re:SQL too

[tbannist]

Well, I have never even seen any vulnerable Cobol web applications, have you? There are probably millions of vulnerable PHP applications.

And I'll have none of your crypto-fascist "percentage" nonsense. We only deal in hard FACTS. The kind that use only capital letters. Although, it is true that PHP is more secure than Java by deisgn. Since PHP has 3 capital letters and is symmetrical, although they should probably change it's name to BHB for true symmetrical redundancy.

Re:SQL too

[cduffy]

Oh, the irony of seeing this...

PHP does not inherently promote SQL injections. Stupid design patterns do.

...next to this...

It's up to you to filter your inputs.

*headdesk*.

Trying to filter your inputs is a losing battle. Not commingling code and data in the first place (and thereby avoiding the underlying problem -- that things intended to be data can be treated as code when reparsed) is the simple, simple win that avoids needing to fight that battle in the first place.

Incidentally, this is the same reason why using $foo rather than "$foo" in shell scripts is so evil -- things which would otherwise be data get parsed and processed (through not just string splitting but also glob expansion), leading to unforeseen results when abused.

Re:SQL too

[TheSpoom]

Where do I begin?

Using mysql_real_escape_string WILL NOT PROTECT YOU from SQL injections.

Yes, it will. SQL injection means that a user input is passed on directly to the database without escaping, so a malicious user can inject (get it?) SQL by ending the string as seen by the DBMS and adding SQL afterward. mysql_real_escape_string et al escape the possible methods of breaking out of SQL user input strings, so you can't affect the outside query.

The function is made for escaping strings incase it contains a character that would break SQL. It's up to you to filter your inputs.

Yes, and this shows you're confusing SQL injection with cross-site scripting, which does require you to filter your inputs (typically by removing HTML from user inputs where it's not necessary and heavily filtering it when it is).

PHP does not inherently promote SQL injections. Stupid design patterns do.

Agreed. That said, I wish PHP would put a little more effort into educating people about best security practices (e.g. in the manual) since a lot of developers get their start on PHP due to its low barrier to entry.

Re:SQL too

[BitZtream]

I've developed applications which have > 10k users in the following languages:

C/C++
ASP
ASP.NET (C#)
VB6
Java
PHP

While my prefered language for getting 'real work' done is C/C++. Over the years I've learned that the only real reason Java applications suck is because Java is easy to deal with (Like VB) so it brings in a metric fuckton of really shitty managers who think they are developers ... who write REALLY REALLY REALLY shitty apps.

Until about 3 years ago, you would not catch a shitty PoS java app on my machine, slow bloating piles of crap ...

Then I was forced to write a java servlet because I needed a good SVG renderer, and Batik is about the only one that doesn't suck ass.

From that experience I learned that Java indeed IS nice, and the JVM (on Windows and OS X at least) is pretty damn impressive (not perfect, but still impressive). I quickly learned that writing fast, quick to load Java apps is really trivial. In fact, they only way I can make a Java app suck is by doing things that I would never allow to be committed to a revision control system I'm in charge of. I am currently incapable of writing a 'slow bloated java app'. It takes me EFFORT to make Java suck. When you see a shitty Java app, you are seeing truely inexperienced programmers who have done things SO AMAZINGLY wrong that you really shouldn't consider them programmers. They aren't, they are just people who wrote some java code.

It's sad that it takes 16GB of RAM just to compile a build of Android. And the funny thing is it kills the whole point of Android being "open". What person has 16GB of RAM on the off chance that they might wanna compile an Android build?

So Open Street Maps isn't Open because I only have 5 gigs of ram in the machine I want to use to process their massive map database into image tiles? I'll have to let them know, here I was, I thought it was just mean for not meeting the requirements of processing a REALLY LARGE complex system that requires extensive optimization in order to actually be useful.

I'm sorry, this is just silly. Open doesn't mean you can use it, it means there are no arbitrary exclusions or inclusions. Open doesn't mean 'meant for everyone and everything for 0 cost'. I'm sorry you're idea of open has been tainted by GPL fanboys, but reality is a little different than what you think it is. Its not my fault you don't have enough RAM to build a system as complex as Android. I say that as what I can only describe as an 'android hater'. I REALLY want to use it for a couple projects, but its just not up to my requirements for lag free operation ... none the less, its really fucking retarded to call it 'not open' because you can't afford the build requirements.

Finally, its fairly trivial to build on less than 16GB of ram, as long as you don't mind waiting a while ... you do know what swap is for, right? I'm sorry you don't understand how things work in the real world, but you don't actually have anything to complain about here.

Re:Interpreted languages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are the languages and numbers of applications submitted for assessment.

Java EE 339
Oracle Forms 39
Oracle CRM 12
Visual Basic 14
dotNET 51
ABAP 59
C 14
C++ 9
COBOL 80
Other 11
____
total 745

339 Java, 14 C, 9 C++???

The sample size and distribution renders all statistical conclusions meaningless! Just another piece of corporate bullshit...

As somebody who's worked in COBOL and Java shops..

[mwvdlee]

As somebody who's worked in COBOL and Java shops (within the same company), let me say "Duh!".
It's not so much the language as the typical environment it's used in, combined with the experience.
People working on Cobol are usually working on mission-critical applications, Java applications are typically less mission critical.

In practice I find that the cost of a bug is usually a pretty good measure of the quality of code; I've worked on code where an hour of downtime literally costs over a million dollar and I've worked on code where a full day of downtime means some user might have noticed it and had to wait a day. There are people working on code where a few seconds of downtime means death. Want to guess what code will be the best quality?

The languages deserve a lot of the blame

[Shivetya]

If I put a room five JAVA/C# developers on doing a particular task I am most likely to end up with four if not five different implementations. With the five COBOL (or similar "old school" language) I might end up with two, on the outside three.

I always though the big feature of certain "object oriented" language was their re-usability but even in house far too many roll their own and have a litany of excuses as to why what they did was better than someone else. Don't even get started on libraries. Standards do reign people in but they don't hit at the other problem, just doing simple work with files is no fun compared to the simplicity it is in COBOL or other business languages. Hell, dealing with money, forget it, COBOL and business languages do that very well. I can search for handling decimal positions and such math for other languages and I wince at all the "try this" I get back.

One team at my friend's shop has a person whose entire job is fixing values in the data base because the "web" guys keep screwing up simple things. His words, not mine. However it still comes to languages which don't provide simple solutions but instead give you so many solutions you actually end up with worse off.

Re:Java == Training Wheels

[CSMoran]

Knowing how to do hard things doesn't mean I need to do it on a day by day basis.

I can know about a dozen sorting algorithms, it doesn't mean I shouldn't use the sort() provided by the standard library of whatever language I'm using. In fact, I'd be a retard not to use it.

True, but that only works for smart programmers like you. There's still a fair point with "if you make it too easy, riff-raff comes in".

Re:Cobol is still being used?

[TheRaven64]

People also mock Fortran, yet it still rocks and has been updated to include many 'modern' features

Fortran doesn't get updated. Every decade or so a new and totally incompatible language is released and called Fortran.