Slashdot Mirror


US CIO/CTO: Idea of Hiring COBOL Coders Laughable

theodp writes "If you're a COBOL programmer, you're apparently persona non grata in the eyes of the nation's Chief Information and Chief Technology Officers. Discussing new government technology initiatives at the TechCrunch Disrupt Conference, Federal CIO Steven VanRoekel quipped, 'I'm recruiting COBOL developers, any out there?,' sending Federal CTO Todd Park into fits of laughter (video). Lest anyone think he was serious about hiring the old fogies, VanRoekel added: 'Trust me, we still have it in the Federal government, which is quite, quite scary.' So what are VanRoekel and Park looking for? 'Bad a** innovators — the baddest a** of the bad a**es out there,' Park explained (video), 'to design, create, and kick a** for America.' Within 24 hours of VanRoekel's and Park's announcement, 600 people had applied to be Presidential Innovation Fellows."

265 comments

  1. Pfffffttttttttt by dcollins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another example in a fine history of mindless government bigger-dick wagging. Pretty close to being up there with: "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring 'Em On".

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Johann+Lau · · Score: 4, Funny

      "to design, create, and kick a** for America"

      As George Carlin knew, that's actually code for bending over and taking the whole thing without lube, then mumbling "thank you" while whipping out your wallet.

    2. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Funny

      Am I the only one who thought "Idiocracy" when watching that?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of some of the job ads I see that mention things like foosball on the desired skills list.

      In other words, Forty and older need not apply.

    4. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the XXI Century version of "Brave New World". =P

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    5. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I told people that the space shuttles still had stuff like floppy drives and basically were equipped with computers from the 70s-80s, there were very confused. Why isn't NASA running the latest hardware?

      It rings true for governments and business alike - reliability and stability are important, and "good enough" is king. There's a pretty decently big local hardware store (7-8 figures of business yearly) that STILL uses the custom cash register and inventory software that they ordered in the 80s. Why? "It works, and unlike Windows PoS our software doesn't really crash or fuck up."

    6. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by jythie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *nods* people often get wrapped up in the enthusiasm for sexy new kit and forget that technology is a tool that does a job, not something that exists for its own sake.

    7. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't knock it. Remember--Microsoft and Apple are technology innovators, they need to be embody the latest and greatest, as do the many other hi tech companies we work for.

      Banks, Insurance Agencies, the Government, and NASA are all technology USERS. It's not that it's "good enough", it's more that they'd rather avert risk. Technology is a means to an end, they aren't interested in downtime caused by not having the very latest .NET patch installed.

      In the case of NASA of course it should be obvious that whatever they do needs to work... this is likely why so many various probes to Mars failed... the damn things actually GET THERE, only to lock up due to some part or bit of code which wasn't reliable.

    8. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by cheesybagel · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows decent programming languages were designed by people with beards. Since COBOL was designed by Grace Hopper it doesn't qualify.

    9. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Don't forget "the air pollution in China is, like, crazy bad", or "let's roll".

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    10. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Xacid · · Score: 1

      I actually read once that a lot of the old gear is kept due to its resilience to the radiation out there. The larger circuit traces from that gear was supposedly less susceptible.

    11. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Well, this is the hacker/engineer distinction clearly evident. Admiral Hopper apparently fell into the former category, as she was so keen to hack up her compiler that she forgot to design a language for it that wasn't shit.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    12. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      I actually read once that a lot of the old gear is kept due to its resilience to the radiation out there. The larger circuit traces from that gear was supposedly less susceptible.

      I think you're referring to the electronics that was certified for spacecraft. None of that is applicable to mainframes. IBM constantly refreshes the electronics, now on ever newer Power CPU's.

    13. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Aye - very likely. Didn't say I necessarily agreed. :)

    14. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by kmoser · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't want to know where Grace Hopper keeps her beard.

    15. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      So Windows is a PoS on PoS?

    16. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, NASA didn't run the latest hardware on the shuttle BECAUSE--space is no place for a BSOD. The stuff they went to orbit with was tested, retested, and tested again.

      When Mark Shuttleworth went to the ISS, his laptop had to meet rigorous standards to make sure it didn't interfere with any ISS systems, and it was only going to be plugged into the power, no networking.

    17. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by hi-endian · · Score: 1

      I'm still not sure if the "Windows PoS" in your comment stands for "Point of Sale" or "Piece of Shit".

    18. Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      "Point of Sale".

      But yeah, it can go both ways pretty much.

  2. a**? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean ass. No need for silly regular expressions.

    1. Re:a**? by isopropanol · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, not ass, but nothing or any number of a's

    2. Re:a**? by toriver · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or maybe a double pointer of (cryptic) type a? These programming languages are weird.

    3. Re:a**? by aynoknman · · Score: 2

      Hmm, how would you say that in COBOL?

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    4. Re:a**? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's many years ago I did that, and pointers were only rarely needed in COBOL programs, but it was something like this:

      SET ADDRESS OF B TO A
      SET ADDRESS OF C TO B

      B and C had to be defined with a 77 level in the linkage section, I think.

    5. Re:a**? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need Object Oriented Cobol

      http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/cobol-horrors.html

    6. Re:a**? by jalefkowit · · Score: 2

      This is the Federal goverment we're talking about. He's probably still waiting for authorization to procure the two 's'-es.

    7. Re:a**? by smellotron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or maybe a double pointer of (cryptic) type a?

      No, it's clearly an extension of the postfix increment operator. The expression a** returns the current value of a and as a side effect executes a *= 1. Because it requires a copy, in most cases you should use **a instead.

    8. Re:a**? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Semantically correct answer:

          Ah, dynamic memory allocation and referencing. How very... academic. COBOL of course has facilities for such things, but why would you ever want to use
          them?

      Syntactically correct answer:

          BPTR USAGE IS POINTER.
          APTR USAGE IS POINTER.
          SET APTR TO ADDRESS OF BPTR. ...and then the global economy crashes...

    9. Re:a**? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Semantically correct answer:

          Ah, dynamic memory allocation and referencing. How very... academic. COBOL of course has facilities for such things, but why would you ever want to use
          them?

      Syntactically correct answer:

          BPTR USAGE IS POINTER.
          APTR USAGE IS POINTER.
          SET APTR TO ADDRESS OF BPTR. ...and then the global economy crashes...

      Ah, that's what happened at Lehman Brothers. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audience by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm recruiting COBOL developers, any out there?

    They are out doing obscenely high-paid consultant and maintenance work for banks, insurance companies, etc.

    I had planned on doing the same thing with C development, but those damn meddling Apple kids have made C popular again.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry to re-post the same comment from another story, but in this case it seems very apropos:

    Agreed. As someone who's worked for the U.S. federal government, the amount of effort required to comply with various directives, even to accomplish the most basic of tasks, is maddening.

    For example, suppose you needed to order some laptops for your developers, and some compilers as well. Private sector: 4 hours to shop around, and you'd have the order fulfilled in about 3 weeks. Most of that delay would be for custom builds of the laptops by Dell, HP, etc.

    In the government: 20 man-hours gathering competitive bids from 3 vendors who agree to work under the pricing schedule your agency requires. 4 man-hours / 2 calendar days ensuring the order complies with Clinger-Cohen and Section 508 regulations. 20 man-hours / 2 calendar weeks getting permission to place the order from one approving authority. Another month going back-and-forth with another approving authority. Then the order gets placed.

    The opportunity costs and labor costs associated with the effort and delays in getting s**t done in the federal government is mind-numbing. When feds get bashed for having, in some cases, more costly compensation packages than the private sector, there's one factor that rarely comes up in conversation: any competent software developer will demand a pay premium in exchange for putting up with this soul-sucking crap on a daily basis.

    1. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      Point being, the Federal government has an unimaginable capacity for shackling very good programmers, and sucking their capacity for excellence. That might explain why the federal government gets such mediocre results (at best), despite making a decent effort to hire from MIT, etc.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not have a manager who cares about building your career, or maybe you aren't sufficiently motivated to move up. Might want to find a new boss or an injection of testosterone to get the juices flowing.

    3. Re:Good luck with that... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      In the government: 20 man-hours gathering competitive bids from 3 vendors who agree to work under the pricing schedule your agency requires. 4 man-hours / 2 calendar days ensuring the order complies with Clinger-Cohen and Section 508 regulations. 20 man-hours / 2 calendar weeks getting permission to place the order from one approving authority. Another month going back-and-forth with another approving authority. Then the order gets placed.

      Your problem there is that you're thinking too small, just trying to buy one laptop.

      If instead you go ahead and outsource to a private vendor all of the logistics and supplies to run an entire war, then that can be quickly and easily arranged with a no-bid contract.

    4. Re:Good luck with that... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because governments care about accountability, and businesses care about efficiency.

      That's always the way in reasonably democratic governments. When you're spending the publics money they have a right to know how it is being spent, and to know it's not being wasted. The problem is that every time there's a fuckup a new layer of oversight gets added, to the point that you spend as much on accounting for spending as you do on spending.

      And because as we just saw with the 38 studios closing yesterday. People get really pissed when the government wastes their money.

    5. Re:Good luck with that... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      This is the problem. It's not about 'moving up' or 'building a career.' Unshackling your programmers means leaving them free to create great stuff. Career is a separate problem.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Good luck with that... by swalve · · Score: 1

      That, combined with an inefficient purchasing system. They should be able to call the GPO and say "I need four notebooks with these specifications" and the GPO sends them off and bills the agency appropriately.

    7. Re:Good luck with that... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having worked at several large corporations, this doesn't really sound that alien. The government is really not much more than a really, really large corporation that can't fail. But large corporations are just as bad. This is how my favorite bureacratic mess worked:

      You can't just buy a laptop, first you have to get approval from IT that your laptop is due for refresh, then you have to get permission from finance that your laptop has been fully depreciated. Then, most times, you just have to accept whatever IT is peddling as the laptop for your job description (even if your actual job has nothing to do with your job description). On some occasions you may get an exemption, and be given a budget to procure a machine. Then you must deal with procurement, a group of vogons whose job it is to drive profit margin out of suppliers, joy out of life, and requirements out of your request. Deviation from this practice will be made to sound like corruption, as if Steve Jobs is giving you a piece of the action under the table. Then after your requirements have been rightsized, and your purchase request has been shopped around and value enhanced, an order will be placed for the laptop you probably didn't really want, but which you caused to be ordered.

      Up to this point, you have been maximizing shareholder potential and optimizing profits. This saved a lot of money didn't it? Next you will do a bit more of that, but mostly and indirectly comply (or at least so the corporate mouthpieces will tell you) with various federal regulations for taxes and record retention.

      It doesn't end there, the new laptop isn't yours, it belongs to the company. It will eventually find itself in the hands of your on-site IT guy, whose first job will be to install the corporate crapware-ridden image on your laptop. The image usually will be targeted towards your job description (again, your job description usually won't match your job, it was designed to keep US citizens from being hired in favor of H1-B's in most cases). It will have a virus scanner, but utility ends there. It will usually have some form of network backup that no matter what happens, you will never be able to use, some network stuff that will make it boot slow and give you access to machines you will never use, software push...etc. Then you must submit your old, depreciated laptop in to be destroyed. Granted you could probably use that machine as a spare webserver or a toy for your kid, it's probably broken in some way by now but can be made to work. But no, it must be destroyed. Not because of sensitive data of course, but because the tax code (apparently) says so. Upon having proof that your laptop was submitted for destruction, you will receive your new laptop. At that point you will of course immediately delete the corporate image, reimage with the corporate image required for your job description (or if you are lucky and don't need to interface with hardware tools much, you can install a clean image with a corporate VM), request to have your machine added to the correct domain, and set up network drives etc. for your actual job function. At that point you'll find that maybe your monitor is VGA and new laptop is DVI or HDMI only, or that the docking station they wouldn't let you order is incompatible with the new laptop, etc. This causes you to create new procurement steps, thus ensuring that group looks especially overwhelmed with work.

      Don't get me started if you need to get a machine in your datacenter with (*shudder* enterprise storage), you'd get more joy out of your year by crushing your balls under a hammer every day for a year. "Bugzilla? Does Oracle make that?". No. No Oracle does not, and if they did I wouldn't want it because it would work poorly.

    8. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You must not have a manager who cares about building your career, or maybe you aren't sufficiently motivated to move up. Might want to find a new boss or an injection of testosterone to get the juices flowing.

      This is not something even a good boss can really solve for an employee. The fundamental issue, in my mind, is that the people who write, interpret, and enforce the bureaucracy's rules, will get beaten up only if the problem they're trying to prevent actually occurs. For example, a Section 508 compliance officer will get beaten up if they let someone buy a code analyzer that's not easily usable by someone who's color blind. Or an information assurance officer will get beaten up if there was any risk that a supposed vulnerability (even a false positive) went unpatched.

      But those people get in no trouble if they (a) bring projects to their knees for lack of needed hardware/software, or (b) add weeks of delay to a project because they had a false-positive vulnerability report, which they "just to play it safe" take the project's source control server offline until the project members can prove that the vulnerability is in fact a false positive.

      Working for the federal government can be awesome. I.e., keeping your fellow citizens safe in various ways is far more satisfying than is padding some CEO's excessive bonus. But between this bureaucratic crap, and having every Republican candidate for public office slander you to score political points, I'd say it's a wash at best.

    9. Re:Good luck with that... by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      The opportunity costs and labor costs associated with the effort and delays in getting s**t done in the federal government is mind-numbing. When feds get bashed for having, in some cases, more costly compensation packages than the private sector, there's one factor that rarely comes up in conversation: any competent software developer will demand a pay premium in exchange for putting up with this soul-sucking crap on a daily basis.

      Oh BOO HOOOOO, life is tough for the software developer on a government contract. /eyeroll

      Here's a thought, if it is hard to spend money, maybe they will be encouraged to stretch out what they have. As little businesses become big businesses, the same thing happens.

      But really, laptop upgrades... you know how many people in the public and private sectors reading this are screaming how unlikely it is for shiny new laptops to show up in three weeks? You sound like you're in IT, did you bake validating the standard OS image against the new hardware or maybe even doing a limited rollout to find problems with it before buying them in bulk?

      Jeez, that's how bureaucracy is born brother, because enough people f'ed that up and learned from it.

    10. Re:Good luck with that... by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This does not actually sound much different then what it is like working with larger private sector companies. Where they do a focus group and take months to make simple decisions. From working with both government and large corporations I have not noticed any real difference in the time it takes to get things done or how much money is wasted they just do it in different areas. Small business though are a different matter, they are usually far far faster at making decisions and doing things.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    11. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because governments care about accountability, and businesses care about efficiency.

      Agreed, but one of the things the government is supposed to be accountable for is efficiency.

      As you correctly pointed out, red tape incurs a real cost. So beyond a certain point, red tape meant to prevent excessive spending is self-defeating.

    12. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Suffice it to say, your concerns don't apply to my situation.

    13. Re:Good luck with that... by brennz · · Score: 1

      s/accountability/appearance of accountability/1

      Fixed!

    14. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this is avoidable, or if all large organizations are doomed to have this quality.

    15. Re:Good luck with that... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      No, governments care about accountability. When they get only the appearance of accountability they add another layer of accounting.

    16. Re:Good luck with that... by Zenin · · Score: 2

      More then anything else, it's this all-too-common story that's driving me to strongly advocate cloud computing. Massive cost savings is just as nice side effect and an easy way to sell it to the suits.

      Hardware needs, network ACLs, software dependencies, licenses, all get defined in a pretty little xml file that just magically happens.

      No meetings upon meetings, endless reviews and approvals, no dumbed down versions for finance to wrap their tiny little brains around, no fat fingered sysadmins who can't ever manage to correctly open a single TCP port much less anything else.

      Just one little deployment descriptor and magically the robots build it for me. Instantly. Perfectly. Exactly the way I asked for. With no back talk.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    17. Re:Good luck with that... by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Government managers care about accountability, you are right. They care about not being the one being held accountable, that is about it - from my experience.

      They will approve anything, as long as they can point the finger at someone else when shit goes wrong.

    18. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cloud computing is not the end all and be all. What if you need a computer to interface with a piece of hardware you have sitting on your desk? No 'cloud computing' solution will help there, you need a physical machine on your desk.

      For the average John or Jane Doe who is doing some spreadsheets maybe that can be abstracted, but a lot of "specialized" work (i.e. engineering) needs dedicated, specific resources.

    19. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Government managers care about accountability, you are right. They care about not being the one being held accountable, that is about it - from my experience.

      They will approve anything, as long as they can point the finger at someone else when shit goes wrong.

      Apparently I've been more fortunate than you. My experiences with low-level managers has been much more positive.

    20. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The system actively punishes managers who take care of anything other than their own career. Blaming subordinates is much more effective than mentoring them. There are only 2 things: Politics and Seniority. That is all. No, quit sniveling. Those are the only two things that matter.

      This is not at all inconsistent with US governments (it's not a monolithic entity) being, with hard data to back it up, an absolute failure at buying software.

    21. Re:Good luck with that... by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the trouble is, they're doing all that because it's necessary ass-covering. The public would scream about corruption and rival suppliers would sue the pants off them if they couldn't prove that the process was unbiased. I've worked in UK government procurement and recognise what you describe, but I remember that it didn't used to be that way, and it wasn't internal bureaucracy that pushed for all those hurdles, it was public and vendor pressure.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    22. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I've give a lot to be able to show the public the costs, financial and otherwise, of having the various mandates in place.

    23. Re:Good luck with that... by volkerdi · · Score: 1

      Don't get me started if you need to get a machine in your datacenter with (*shudder* enterprise storage), you'd get more joy out of your year by crushing your balls under a hammer every day for a year.

      Especially if you're the sort of person who likes that kind of thing.

    24. Re:Good luck with that... by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      You can be effective even when the culture makes it hard. My strategy: full speed ahead, torpedo's be dammed; I do this as in my institution asking for forgiveness takes less time than asking for permission. That worked as I got promoted to a point where's my only way to move up is to wait that those above me retires or dies. But in a big organization like mine, mavens like me represent about .5% of the workforce, in a start-up that ratio could be as high as 1.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    25. Re:Good luck with that... by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Because governments care about accountability, and businesses care about efficiency.

      Agreed, but one of the things the government is supposed to be accountable for is efficiency.

      As you correctly pointed out, red tape incurs a real cost. So beyond a certain point, red tape meant to prevent excessive spending is self-defeating.

      Actually "efficiency" is only one metric, and there are others that are more important. That includes "conform to policies" (many, if not most, are set by Congress; often for the best of motives), "fair/open", and "timely."

      I say these without prejudice; "timely" was certainly a major motivation to get MRAPs (including their command and control/situational awareness software components) to the troops in Iraq, from a financial perspective that was certainly not "efficient. (Multiple vehicles with different capabilities, a lot of maintenance costs/problems, etc. "fast" but most certainly not "efficient" when you consider a 5 or 10 year total cost of ownership. Furthermore, basic MRAPs work great in Iraq and lousy in Afghanistan; lousy off-road performance, too big for bridges, etc, etc.)

      Others here have poked fun at the application of contract rules (e.g. 3 competitive bids), but consider the alternative. In business with a clear bottom-line, spending $5k for computers may well be in the noise, but the corporation has the choice to do this. A lot of contracting rules favor small business, disadvantaged businesses/individuals, are there to prevent potential fraud, etc. Those are all social goods that often contradict the basic notion of "efficiency."

      Consider the most recent GSA scandal: If this were Trump Enterprises, would anyone question those expenditures?

    26. Re:Good luck with that... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because governments care about accountability

      I see no sign that government cares any more about accountability than businesses do.

      When you're spending the publics money they have a right to know how it is being spent, and to know it's not being wasted.

      If only there was a right to not waste my tax money. No such thing exists.

    27. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with your points.

      However, in my subjective opinion, the costs outweigh the benefits. Perhaps they wouldn't matter for someone who's career aspirations are to be a generic business drone. But for someone who primarily wants to write great software, the overall burden is awful.

    28. Re:Good luck with that... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      So I would argue the current system is broken. For all the energy, time, and money our government puts into accountability you'd think we would not be reading headlines about how the GAO (Government Accountability Office) itself miss used all sorts of funds to throw wild parties. I am sure that the accountability processes and procedures and auditing do in fact prevent lots of fraud and abuse. The trouble is I am not sure they are cost effective.

      You don't install a million dollar security system to protect a couple hundred thousand in other assets do you?

      Perhaps accountability should be results focused. Did your your office/department/bureau accomplish its assigned objectives using the funds allotted? If bSuccess goto :quit; Else DisciplineTheResponsibleParty(Audit());

        In the end there may be a little moral victory in seeing the money not go out the door to fraud and abuse, but if it costs as much to prevent that as the fraud an abuse costs does it matter to the tax payer in the end? As I see it either way my pockets been picked, and the money is been spent. I only care at that point society got the benefit was supposed to get from that.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    29. Re:Good luck with that... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the summary, it was staggeringly accurate to what I spent the last 6 months doing - namely, getting a high-end machine to use as a centralized computational workstation for my small research group. First I had to fight the external vendor to just get a quote. Then, a guy in IT cancelled my order because the company "doesn't support" that type of machine - which is, again, simply a beefed-up version of a machine they *do* support. Of course, they don't tell me it was cancelled, it was just sort of a silent failure. After a while, I inquire as to status, discover it was cancelled, find the guy who cancelled it, argue with him on the phone, eventually win him over.

      Then, it takes forever for a "custom" machine to get delivered. When it does get delivered, it goes to the on-site vendor support team, who basically just put it in a corner and refuse to touch it, simply because it's not one of the very few machines approved for our large company. I discover this after a month. Then, I spend a month arguing with various representatives of the vendor, and finally I go back to one of the IT guys actually employed by the company who is actually willing to put an image on the machine. Finally, the OS and network access gets installed in a day (probably less), which is all I wanted in the first place.

      I'd hate to imagine the amount of labor I spent getting this machine, but I'd say it exceeded the price of the machine.

    30. Re:Good luck with that... by slew · · Score: 1

      Of course if a company or government agency didn't have all those layers of makework, they would be accused of not contributing to the community by employing local folks. Full local employment to keep the local community happy is an essential mission tasked to the kingdom builders inside of large corporations and government agencies and w/o them, we'd probably have even more local unemployment. Believe it or not, the skills required by these types of jobs are the most transportable between organizations. If you are making widget or writing software or managing government contracts you always need a purchasing person, and IT person and a finance person and you can always find such a person to fill these jobs w/o recruiting them from across the country or an ocean...

      That being said sometimes kingdom builders will fill these jobs with brother-in-laws, cousins, neighbors kids, and mistresses and that's when things really go down hill... At least the ones you are describing just sound like over eager bureaucrats...

    31. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a multi billion euro global corp. and procurement takes days at most and within reason you get what you want. I don't know about public sector but if you pick your contract opportunities well, you can be coding on interesting projects at a premium without all that nonsense. If your job sucks, get a better one - they're out there!

    32. Re:Good luck with that... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      This is not something even a good boss can really solve for an employee. The fundamental issue, in my mind, is that the people who write, interpret, and enforce the bureaucracy's rules, will get beaten up only if the problem they're trying to prevent actually occurs.

      Oh the irony.....

      Did it ever occur to you that an actual "good boss" would NOT "beat up" an employee over some arcane failure which wasn't the employee's fault?

      No....that's pretty much the exact opposite of what a good leader would do. The behavior you just described is endemic of a failed organization with failed leadership.

      Bad organizations and failed leaders blame employees for problems. Good leaders find causes and fix problems.

    33. Re:Good luck with that... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Sorry....I guess it would help if I actually read your comment before replying

    34. Re:Good luck with that... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      When they get only the appearance of accountability they add another layer of accounting.

      Which can be compared to dealing with structural flaws by putting on another coat of paint.

    35. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, let me explain the structure a little. That might clarify the issue for you. I'll use the problem of information assurance officer (IAO) as an example. These are the people that will shut down your computers because they have a concern, often without talking to you, and with no sense of risk/benefit trade-offs.

      (Joe programmer) - Guy working on project.

      (Jane first-line manager) - Joe's boss. The one whom we're debating whether or not she's a "good" manager.

      (Mordak) - Denier of Information Services. The IAO for Joe's and Jane's organization.

      (Michael Scott) - The lowest-level government operative who has the authority to balance Joe's project needs vs. Mordak's paranoia.

      The problem: Even though Mordak and Joe might be part of the same government agency, Michael Scott works in Washington, and has no clue that Joe can't get work done because of Mordak. There are 8 layers of org-chart between Joe and Michael Scott. And still 7 layers between Jane and Michael Scott.

      Result: Michael Scott will never hear about Joe's problems, until 75% of the people under Michael Scott have the same problem as Joe. And then, the day before Michael Scott takes action, he's promoted to some other job, and Joe goes back to square one.

      In a situation like this, there's basically nothing Jane can do to fix the problem, aside from running over Mordak in the parking lot. Which is tempting, but ultimately a poor choice and one to be avoided.

    36. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, just bring your own stuff.

    37. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have a purchasing card with my company. it is somewhat useful for buying something small (like say a cpvc schedule 80 2" pipe elbow) and it has some strange limits like only works in certain types of stores, only can spend so much per purchase and per month. i shouldnt do this with my own money so that the customer can be billed. but i cant buy this from grainger because my company has a special relationship with grainger. so i need to ask someone (i dont know who because i just stopped doing things that make sense) to bid my order to grainger because they might be able to get special pricing for my 2" pipe elbow. no, it doesnt matter how small the order is, it must be bid with grainger.

      but it gets better! after i make this small purchase i must then "reconcile" the purchase online with some terrible online banking application that only works with internet explorer. after that, i need to create a purchase order and set it up to my managers for approval (which i should have gotten ahead of time anyway, even though it is a $10 part). it was explained to me that these purchases can be used to defraud the company. $10 at a time? with my $5000/month limit? i know, i know. what if EVERYONE did it.

    38. Re:Good luck with that... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      " it was designed to keep US citizens from being hired in favor of H1-B's in most cases"

      to

      " it was designed to keep H1-B from being hired in favor of US citizens's in most cases"

      fixed that for you.

    39. Re:Good luck with that... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      hmm backwards damn you beer.

    40. Re:Good luck with that... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      While it may be different at the federal level, at the state level you get a choice of a couple of models and there is no 'shopping around' since only certain vendors are approved to do business with that particular state anyway.

      In private business as a director, i wouldn't allow end users to shop around either. We have to support what they are getting, so they get one of our standards unless they can justify something else.

      Both ways are not 'delay' inducing..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    41. Re:Good luck with that... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I should note that the ex-employer that I modeled this after considers itself a major peddler of clouds. Personally I don't agree, we do need the laptop, but I do engineering work not just spreadsheets and email.

    42. Re:Good luck with that... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Against IT security policy, unless you are willing to give it the corporate image. Bureaucracy isn't just a condition, it's a virus.

    43. Re:Good luck with that... by OldTOP · · Score: 1

      Do you think it would be a good idea to remove some regulation from government, as well as from private industry? Of course we're all supposed to be afraid that would lead to massive waste, but that's what we achieve with over regulation anyway. Are you ready to write your congresscritter and tell it to loosen up procurement procedures?

      --
      The universe was intelligently designed. Unfortunately God was in a hurry so he coded it in Java.
    44. Re:Good luck with that... by LavouraArcaica · · Score: 1

      Accountability is a main issue itself. It's not to achieve efficiency, but to achieve fairness.

    45. Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start.

    46. Re:Good luck with that... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is all that sillyness was put in because people got worked up about 'corruption in government', and politicians selling the idea of reducing corruption at any cost tend to get elected.

    47. Re:Good luck with that... by Zenin · · Score: 1

      1) The near complete majority of applications that would run in a data center don't need specialized hardware, etc.

      2) Even if it does, it can live in a datacenter. There is nothing about cloud deployments that precludes placing custom hardware on site.

      3) If John Doe doing spreadsheets is your idea of cloud deployments, you seriously haven't the slightest clue what the cloud is.

      Yes, a machine at your desk is needed, but it increasingly makes less and less sense to try and make it a massively powerful machine with the idea that you'll run your work locally. Not when you can so easily tap into such massively more powerful computing power for a single digit fraction of the cost. Especially for engineering. It isn't simply about the cost, it really does give you access to power that you simply can't get at your desk at any price. And it's a hell of a lot easier to tap into the cloud then it ever was, is, or will be to deploy your own physical servers.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    48. Re:Good luck with that... by Zenin · · Score: 1

      If you think cloud deployments have anything to do with spreadsheets and email, you really haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

      Especially if you're doing engineering work, leveraging cloud resources makes drastically more sense then trying to stuff a laptop with more computing power. If you're doing anything much beyond trivial, you'll quickly outgrow the most powerful laptops. It's a dead end. In stark contrast you'll never outgrow the cloud. And that's all before we even start talking about ease of deployment, procurement costs, or operational costs.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    49. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and having every Republican candidate for public office slander you to score political points

      I'm glad you mentioned this. I've never worked for the public sector, I don't consider myself to be political, tho I do find myself voting republican when it's the right person--examples being I'd never vote for a Palin or Gingrich because they seem like loons. I was OK with McCain, and I might be OK with Romney. I like Obama, I think he intends to do the right thing though his methods and motivations aren't always compatible with the rest of us.

      Going back on topic... you almost never hear a conservative candidate giving any praise or acknowledgement to government paid employees outside the military or legislature. I think this is one of the their biggest failings--they fail to see that shit work is done by little people, whether it's migrant and domestic workers that are so-called illegal, or government employees keeping the wheels in motion. Give them all some credit where credit is due because society would cease to function as it does today if it weren't for those people.

    50. Re:Good luck with that... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I dealt with GSA a lot during the 90s and 00s. Buying hardware, after the requirements were set, was as simple as opening the GSA catalog sent by Compaq, matching up the base systems, adding options, and giving the polite person on the other end of the phone line your PO/requisition number. Delivered. If you had a local servicing outfit (like mine) taking the service call, we could call Compaq and get warranty parts with a serial number, no fancy invoice copy required. LOts of it came with 3 year warranty.

      But goverment purchasing got all optimized and enhanced, and now you can't buy anything in less than a year.

      Oh, and when HP absorbed Compaq, they pretty much dismissed the Compaq goverment sales department, since it was NIH. And no one liked working with HP's government sales group, since they were incompetent especially in service. Rumor was that some of the Compaq people came back, but too late - lots of agenies started bying elsewhere.

      feh. Our Federal government is incompetent at nearly every level. It can hardly get worse, and dismissing everyone to start over would not be as bad as it might be letting them continue grinding away.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    51. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must work for a small private firm. Big private firms operate almost identically to the government. Worst case I've seen so far was working almost two years to get additional hard drive space added to a Solaris box. Big business does everything better than big government including building slow unwieldy beuracracies.

    52. Re:Good luck with that... by TarPitt · · Score: 2

      The system actively punishes managers who take care of anything other than their own career

      Odd - sounds just like the private sector. I worked for a large public accounting firm. You know how I could tell a manager wasn't going to make it? When they would say something like, "You've been working hard all week. Why don't you take off a little early on Friday?"

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
    53. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, suppose you needed to order some laptops for your developers, and some compilers as well. Private sector: 4 hours to shop around, and you'd have the order fulfilled in about 3 weeks. Most of that delay would be for custom builds of the laptops by Dell, HP, etc.

      In my *private sector* company, at present, the situation would be "spend several weeks trawling round the company for some crappy old laptops that no-one is using".
      The only approved purchasing method (for everything from laptops to stationary), an online catalog system, is currently *closed* to improve this quarter's figures.
      Attempts to get urgent/essential items via expenses will be rejected. If you've got enough clout, you *might* be able to escalate to board level and get a special exemption.
      We can't even order a box of pens or printer paper, probably until the end of June. And no, we're not going out of business; we're solvent and moderately profitable.
      We *suspect* this is in order to hit some target which triggers extra large bonuses for the blessed types on high.
      Mildly amusing story: One of the board level types was giving a boring talk to 30 people at my location a year or two back, and he'd saved the good news to last "You'll all be glad to know we've hit the trigger level for your higher bonus payments". He was surprised by the muted reaction and it had to be explained to him that most employees were not in the bonus scheme, including 28 out of the 30 present.

    54. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is the same Republicans you slander here to score political points would be making the argument that these regulations and bloated bureaucracy are bad and should be cut back.

  5. In related news... by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Park seems to like a**es

    1. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, why wouldn't a park like acres?

    2. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I like big butts and I cannot lie!

    3. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, these guys are just looking for the best of the best. The Ruby on Rails guys; the javascript specialists; the "oh hey, closures are now cool which is why I use them for everything" guys; the guys who are always studying the next big thing and probably have no idea what big O notation is, definitely have never touched assembler, and would stare at you blankly if you tried to explain to them that all software is math. Those are the true innovators, not some dude who knows old programming languages. How the fuck can you innovate in software if you're using an old programming language?

    4. Re:In related news... by narcc · · Score: 1

      Wait ... are you saying to ignorance is prerequisite to innovation?

    5. Re:In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moran. Everyone knows that the guy who files the patent is the real innovator. You know, the idea guy. Coders just follow instructions.

      ps FUCK SOFTWARE PATENTS

  6. I don't want to live on this planet anymore... by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    Seriously... if there were a new world and you can get on a ship and go.... and never come back... how many would just do it.

    that's an extreme reaction but it's just one stupid thing after another... I just want to go...

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're from some bizarre bygone era where words like "maintenance" and "responsibility" were not yet considered dirty language. Why stop at disposable culture when you can have disposable infrastructure?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore... by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      I would leave in a heartbeat. If aliens landed in front of me I would already have run up the ramp by the time they asked for people to come with them and waiting inside.

      I hope that as our technology keeps improving that it will be viable to build a ship and leave this planet. Sure a new colony might be worse .... but that would be hard to do.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    3. Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore... by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

      Don't run, all that exercise makes you taste gamey.

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    4. Re:I don't want to live on this planet anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to live on this planet any more? I knew somebody else who didn't want to live on this planet any more. And he doesn't.

  7. I agree with this sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    COBOL is really the most advanced programming language ever developed. I don't see why the U.S. government has abandoned COBOL for slower, more complex languages like C, Java, Python, and Ruby. All new government development should be taking place in COBOL, and it's really inappropriate for the U.S. CIO/CTO to go out there and say otherwise.

    1. Re:I agree with this sentiment by DurendalMac · · Score: 2

      You left out "And get off my lawn!"

    2. Re:I agree with this sentiment by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but if you're developing in anything other than machine language, you're really leaving performance on the table. No namby pamby assembly, no wishy washy COBOL, no effete C, and definitely none of those worse options. Write it in machine language or know that you're an incompetent hack.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:I agree with this sentiment by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but if you're developing in anything other than machine language, you're really leaving performance on the table. No namby pamby assembly, no wishy washy COBOL, no effete C, and definitely none of those worse options. Write it in machine language or know that you're an incompetent hack.

      I'm disgusted at the inefficiency of your greenhorns' code. If you want moderately fast code, write new microcode. If you're a little better, use an FPGA. If you're a real man, your programming language should involve masks and X-ray lithography.

      What has education come to these days???

    4. Re:I agree with this sentiment by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      well, its more a case of "choose the right tool". COBOL is the right tool for data processing tasks - stuff like running payroll or reconciling credit card transactions. Its not sexy or cool, but it works, and for the most part works so well we're still using code written back in the 70s.

      Idiots will take that reliability and stability as a sign that it's a no good, legacy language that no-one wants anymore. They are idiots who will replace it with a multi-million dollar project rewriting it in whatever cool tech is du jour, that would probably be a HTML5 'interactive' website today, but in previous years either enterprise java beans, C# and biztalk, CORBA objects, or web services. So who hired these numpties into a position where their ignorance can fuck up the real world?

    5. Re:I agree with this sentiment by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to what makes COBOL the right tool for data processing tasks.

      I was under the impression that much of the reason it was still around is generally because there are existing large projects already written in it, and it is generally deemed to expensive to try to convert to some more modern language. You make it sound like there is more to it than just that (although surely it plays a part).

      What makes it a better language than say Java or Python for data processing tasks? If one chooses to use those languages in a more purely procedural style (rather than an object oriented style) would they not produce similarly straightforward code, but with the advantage of having a much larger pool of developers?

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    6. Re:I agree with this sentiment by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm curious as to what makes COBOL the right tool for data processing tasks.

      I was under the impression that much of the reason it was still around is generally because there are existing large projects already written in it, and it is generally deemed to expensive to try to convert to some more modern language. You make it sound like there is more to it than just that (although surely it plays a part).

      What makes it a better language than say Java or Python for data processing tasks? If one chooses to use those languages in a more purely procedural style (rather than an object oriented style) would they not produce similarly straightforward code, but with the advantage of having a much larger pool of developers?

      That's a fair question. I'll try to give a quick answer without starting a language flame war. :)

      First, to be fair, good programmers can do just about anything with any language. We've done remarkable things though the decades with very little. Now that computers are relatively infinite in capability, even bad programmers have a shot at doing anything with any language. So it doesn't matter as much anymore.

      But as an IBM RPG programmer, which has similar attributes as COBOL, the reasons are high speed transaction processing with language and even hardware support for binary decimal data type and direct disk IO, not limited to SQL for database IO. Programs are written with typed variables and compiled. Efficiency used to be paramount to accomplish what needed to be done, and it still is highly efficient.

      The IBM mainframes and midranges these programs run on can be smaller but scale to very, very large environments that are very secure. Java also runs on these systems and we write systems with it and is used extensively, but generally not for the hardcore data processing jobs.

      When something is processed, be it a screen, something from a web page, a record from an input file, etc., we usually hit several files in validating and updating info, on a transaction by transaction basis. It can be emulated with extremely complex SQL statements, I've seen some of them, but it takes quite a bit of engineering to attempt to do all the IO we routinely do for transactions.

      The IBM midrange (i OS) and mainframe operating systems are also a big part of the success of RPG and COBOL, respectively.

      I've always said that if i OS were written today by an OSS team you guys would think it was the second coming of operating systems.

    7. Re:I agree with this sentiment by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      THnak you for saving me the time of writing the same comment. I'd add that this guy should be fired for mocking the role of COBOL (and probably FORTRAN too) in government IT systems as he clearly has no understanding of the value of stability and the inherent costs of sexy new bling.

    8. Re:I agree with this sentiment by tqk · · Score: 1

      well, its more a case of "choose the right tool". COBOL is the right tool for data processing tasks ...

      You know, back in the day they recognized it wasn't the right tool, which is why they spent a boatload defining Ada to replace it. So, why are we still dragging COBOL around? Why hasn't Ada replaced development going forward? And don't just say "Ada sucks!", because I know exceptionally competent (ie. MSc CS) Ada programmers who love it and believe it to be every bit as powerful and versatile as things like C/C++, et al.

      My money's on management inertia. Often, it's damned difficult to get them to stick to the gameplan instead of worrying about their control over their personal fiefdoms.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:I agree with this sentiment by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Well, you could say why are we still dragging java around when we have C#, or Scala etc. There is nothing wrong with keeping something around when it still works, and sometimes (ie often) the latest, coolest thing isn't as great as the advocates claim.

      As for Ada, this report says why :

      Yet Ada is more difficult to learn and does not provide as many convenient built in features for data formatting and input/output

      so if you have a lot of IO data formatting, then you would want Cobol.

    10. Re:I agree with this sentiment by tqk · · Score: 1

      Well, you could say why are we still dragging java around when we have C#, or Scala etc.

      C# doesn't appear to exist for me (Debian Linux), so I assume that's proprietary Microsoft tech. Scala does exist, yet I'd never heard of it before a couple of days ago.

      There is nothing wrong with keeping something around when it still works ...

      In the case of COBOL, clearly there is something wrong if you're having to pay princely specialist rates for programmers who understand it.

      "Yet Ada is more difficult to learn and does not provide as many convenient built in features for data formatting and input/output"

      That does not strike me as a very compelling argument assuming competent programmers. Every language is lacking in some way in comparison to others. If "convenient built in features for data formatting and input/output" is the make or break test, then they should be using perl[*], not COBOL.

      [*] "Practical Extraction and Report Language" or "Positively Eclectic Rubbish Lister"; take your pick. :-)

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  8. COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    But I'd hate to be the poor souls stuck with porting (and, god help them ,refactoring) forty+ years of working COBOL code . Talk about a thankless task - if you get it right, noone will know anything happened, and if you get it wrong, you'll never hear the end of it.

    1. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I work in one of those places who still maintain large COBOL systems. One of our problems is getting the customers to change. We provide them a modern system, and the customers still prefer to run batch programs and have reports print out. They just refuse to change their process.

    2. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Mabhatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      COBOL is still around because the systems that use it only get rebooted every 10 years or so. People don't realize how much business and legal knowledge is locked up in these programs. In many cases it's more efficient to "screen scrape" than even attempt to get 15 years of collected business intelligence and regulation compliance exactly correct... And all that stuff is MOVING pieces that have to be adjusted every year because laws change.

      This is why company ERP conversions fail so spectacularly. Many company systems have a great deal of "tribal" knowledge from long-retired employees hard-coded by long-retired programmers.

    3. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by swalve · · Score: 2

      The only thing worse that maintaining an old infrastructure is trying to change to a new one. And frankly, I'm a little annoyed that the government's CIO is one of those "it's old, how passe', not my project" kinds of guys.

    4. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by jgrahn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I work in one of those places who still maintain large COBOL systems. One of our problems is getting the customers to change. We provide them a modern system, and the customers still prefer to run batch programs and have reports print out. They just refuse to change their process.

      Have you tried to give them something which matches their processes, then? I don't know much about batch processing, but God knows there are plenty of "modern systems" I wouldn't touch because they don't fit the way I work.

    5. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I must say if you cant get them to change then your doing it wrong, where I work we are in the middle of a 10 year project to move from COBOL batch processes to all .NET with no batch processes. The first steps are done, there is no more COBOL or mainframe its all in .NET running on 10 clustered servers (4 app servers, 2 DB servers, 4 web servers) that act just like the old system only with a lot more redundancy built in. The next steps are to slowly move away from the batch system and move to an interactive system with access given direct to the customers who need access to it. Oh and BTW I do work for a government agency so it can be done it just takes some pushing and moving slowly to get there.

    6. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work with a large and complex Cobol system every day. The good Cobol programs are really easy to maintain, the horrible are like most other languages. The simple syntax and clear call structure makes it easy to understand. Most people can probably read a Cobol program wihtout to much trubble. The most important thing to get right is variable naming right. IF done properly the codes reads like a book.

      Batch work within OPC/TWS are powerfull like hell. Only the OPC schedule is tremendus work to replace with another system. And the business logic within the software is enourmus and collected over 30 years. I have seen applications running without change for 25 years. That what you can call proof coding.

      Hiring a good Cobol programmer can be wise, they know batch processing and working with mission critical systems containing millions of buisess rules.

    7. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done some aerospace work for the USAF. Honestly, a lot of mathematical equation and matrix solvers are written in COBOL and Fortran and are being used that way to this day. Well, there's almost always a wrapper in C or similar, but the old code is still being used on a daily basis. This is in aircraft modeling and simulation, something that is supposed to be a cutting-edge endeavor. When I asked about why the codebase hadn't been updated, the general consensus was basically: "If it isn't broken, it'll take too much time and money to fix it."

    8. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      Plan for batches, as they will come back to bite you in the ass.
      I had the happy fun time of having to write a software that could print batches of up to 18000 invoices (with a lot's of special font that made the pdf creation an exercise in baroqueness) on a commercial xerox printer, as that feature was forgotten in the analysis phase... You know the marketing department forgot to told us that the mandatory electronic invoice was opt-out, that the seniors were automatically excluded and some other minors details like that. In the marketing guy head mass printing and online viewing were the same thing, the reality is that even in 2012 enterprise mass printing is still gory mess.

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    9. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Let's put it like that:
      a conservative guy who tries to optimize the system he has inherited won't make news, won't blow budgets on spectacular projects.
      a guy like this one will start new stuff, talk to media and maybe have some project succeeding.

      Which one will the people who build enterprises on tax money want in office?

      This guy simply stated his function in a too explicit fashion.

      If you get to realize that money is control only when most people are in need of it (it doesn't matter how much the rich have, it matters how much you subtract to the middle/lower classes), then the action and philosophy of today's rulers becomes very rational.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    10. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      The replacement was SAP, which requires things like turning the computer on and logging in. They seem to prefer 132 char fixed font reports.

    11. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The replacement was SAP..."
      OK, sympathy all gone. They're absolutely right to keep their old processes. Anything is better than infecting an organization with SAP. (Well, maybe anything but Oracle.) The point is to get the job done, not to twist it around so it fits into SAP's way of doing things, nor to pay for flocks of permanent consultants just because SAP doesn't ever work right for any company without continuous half-failed modifications.

    12. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The replacement was SAP, which requires things like turning the computer on and logging in. They seem to prefer 132 char fixed font reports.

      Man, I would prefer a manual switchboard frontend to a vacuum tubes backend over SAP any day!

    13. Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Most companies dont have an actual process, they have whatever the last guy was doing. You see this stuff in code all the time. Some engineer in 1995 decided to call some db "Pants", and now the Pants db runs a multi billion dollar company.

  9. Bad dudes by Ironchew · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you a bad enough dude to innovate the President?

    1. Re:Bad dudes by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      Mod +1 retro!

    2. Re:Bad dudes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, the reference still isn't as "retro" as COBOL itself is...

  10. The word "badass" will help my resume? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think so.

    In this context, "badass" means "young and arrogant, willing to get screwed over"

    1. Re:The word "badass" will help my resume? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      "young and arrogant, willing to get screwed over"

      ...without even knowing it.

  11. Experience doesn't count?! by david.emery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I learned a lot from doing COBOL work. But it's clear that experience doesn't count. Instead employers do buzzword search on resumes for the latest hip technology or alphabet soup "certifications".

    It wouldn't be quite so bad if the industry didn't choose to adopt one labor-intensive technology after another. Most of the current programming fads don't scale up for large projects (>100k SLOC) any better than a lot of the stuff we used 20-30 years ago. Too much training and education, and then too many tools, focus on the individual, rather than on the team of developers/maintainers for long-lived applications. But I suspect a lot of senior managers think that large systems are irrelevant; everything will be a 1000 line "app".

    This is a problem that is -independent- of the inefficiencies implicit in working for the government (as either an employee or a contractor.)

    For what it's worth, I have always insisted that any programmer/developer that I had any influence over hiring must have demonstrated competence in more than 1 programming language/development approach. And "C/C++" didn't count as 2 languages (both because so much of C++ is bad C with an OOP veneer, and because a lot of core concepts, including bad habits, are shared between the two languages.)

    Hey Karmashock, when does that ship sail?

    1. Re:Experience doesn't count?! by swalve · · Score: 1

      Another trick is to look for people with different certifications. Looking for a Cisco guy? Find one who knows languages too. Need a COBOL developer? Pick the one who has worked with Java.

    2. Re:Experience doesn't count?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And wrong. These turkeys won't hire online work at home workers, lest not global workers/coders. Suggest that these are exactly the sort to breath fresh air into mud stuck environments.

      There should be massive outsourcing to an online bid service, such as Elance, then keeping the ones you like, and cutting the mediocre ones. Russia, Brazil and USA'ians others .

      Now the problem with this is those 'want new blood managers' are stuck in an environment that demands IE6 and a MS Land certified environment that instantly rejects and anything foreign - such as work-at-home-remotely, or open source solutions. I also suggest that in COBOL days, there WAS an effective code and technical reviews, rather than modern day head nodding consensus.
      So easy to write Visual spaghetti and faulty XML - and get away with it nowadays.

      Game over. They say one thing, but have set parameters that exclude getting the best of the best. (Few exceptions like Apple and Google and Open Source contributors)

  12. Why do coders order hardware? by khasim · · Score: 1

    For example, suppose you needed to order some laptops for your developers, and some compilers as well.

    Shouldn't that be handled by the manager or someone?

    The actual coders should never have to look up the prices on any of their tools. New hardware should just show up as soon as the manager can complete all the paperwork and the political fights.

    1. Re:Why do coders order hardware? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      For example, suppose you needed to order some laptops for your developers, and some compilers as well.

      Shouldn't that be handled by the manager or someone?

      The actual coders should never have to look up the prices on any of their tools. New hardware should just show up as soon as the manager can complete all the paperwork and the political fights.

      Good question. The reason is that if someone in an administrative / managerial role orders the hardware, it shows up as an "overhead" cost. Congress has made it clear that overhead costs need to be reduced. However, Congress wasn't willing to lighten the regulations that help drive up these overhead costs. So the only real option left to agency executive who aren't willing to push back on stupid Congressional mandates is to shift administrative work onto the software developers. Sure, it means the work is getting done by people with a much higher hourly rate, and it's an awful, dispiriting distraction to those people who should be coding. But that's "not my problem" from the perspective of spineless leaders who care about the appearance of efficiency, rather than actual efficiency.

    2. Re:Why do coders order hardware? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      To clarify: it's the labor cost of ordering the laptops / compilers that would show up as "overhead". The cost of the actual hardware / software would show up a project-related costs regardless of who's soul was consumed by making the order happen.

    3. Re:Why do coders order hardware? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..because a plain manager doesn't know what to order. if he knows, he's a developer.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Why do coders order hardware? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      For example, suppose you needed to order some laptops for your developers, and some compilers as well.

      Shouldn't that be handled by the manager or someone?

      The actual coders should never have to look up the prices on any of their tools. New hardware should just show up as soon as the manager can complete all the paperwork and the political fights.

      This is how is done in good places (both public and private.) There are private shops that act as stupidly as bad public shops when it comes to insulating developers from the day-to-day management/inventory minutia.

    5. Re:Why do coders order hardware? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant even then. They still have to wait for over a month for something that should have been there in a week or less.

    6. Re:Why do coders order hardware? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The private sector has magical free market fairy dust that makes it a bazillion times more efficient than the government could ever be.

  13. They didn't laugh at Lewis and Clark by shine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We blazed a trail with COBOL. Other languages may be better, but COBOL was the early language that made computers useful to a large number of business's and governments. The reason there is so much of it, is that it works.

    ~S

    1. Re:They didn't laugh at Lewis and Clark by Surt · · Score: 1

      I hear that pair spooning was modeled after Lewis and Clark.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYBjVTMUQY0

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:They didn't laugh at Lewis and Clark by eyenot · · Score: 1

      People today don't explore newly discovered continents in a canoe, either. Meanwhile, relevancy still exists.

      I think the common error being made regarding COBOL is to insist "COBOL is around because it works".

      True, it works, I'm not saying it doesn't work because that'd be ignorant. But it's not around because it works ATM -- it's around because it "workED", when it was installed, in days of Yore.

      There seem to be three specific arguments for maintaining the use of COBOL:

      (1) Because lots of companies are using it, (i.e.) keep using it because it's what's being used. That's why punch cards are the world's most popular storage media, of course.

      (2) Because it's a perfect, bug-free language. This is so laughable I don't even understand why the people pitching this argument didn't just stick with the first which is far less ridiculous.

      (3) Because $$$. This is the only valid argument, you know. You can get paid learning and using COBOL. This doesn't explain why it's the go-to choice for NEW technology and NEW code, but it explains why people would defend learning COBOL: because you can get hired to use it. Ultimately, though, this argument falls back on the first one: use it because it's already being used. If your job isn't to rewrite everything in something that's a more acceptable standard like C or, fine, Java, then I don't understand why they're paying you. Those employers, again, must be falling back on one of the other two arguments.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  14. Kids by Bogtha · · Score: 1

    So what are VanRoekel and Park looking for? 'Bad a** innovators â" the baddest a** of the bad a**es out there,' Park explained (video), 'to design, create, and kick a** for America.'

    They sound like teenagers.

    Also, good job fucking up Unicode yet again, Slashdot. It's been how many years?

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  15. ass. ASS, I say by Eil · · Score: 2

    There, I said it.

    1. Re:ass. ASS, I say by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Great. Now let's go antiq--BOOM!

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:ass. ASS, I say by FiloEleven · · Score: 2

      Ass, Ass. There, I got the other two you missed.

  16. Oh crap. by icebraining · · Score: 2

    The US CIO/CTO is a brogrammer.

  17. This makes complete sense. by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

    This is how you create and recruit brogrammers. They want frat boys to do their systems.

  18. About 'old fogies' link in TFA by rve · · Score: 1

    The author of that 'old fogies' article explains how he used to agree old (over 40) programmers were laughable, but now that he's reached that age, he seems to feel that experience superior to youth and well worth the extra money.

    Now, In my experience, this is only true up to a point. There seems to be very little difference in productivity beyond say 5 to 10 years of experience, while an additional 10 years of experience in a technology phased out years ago and not at all used in a company's current projects is simply doesn't add enough to warrant a higher hourly rate.

    A good techie stays up to date on the latest technology, but if you are hiring for a project based on scala, and have the choice between two programmers with 5 years of scala experience, but one of the two has an additional 15 years of C++ experience and demands twice the hourly rate, hiring the more experienced guy would simply not make sense. It's not ageism, it's common sense. If they cost the same, I'd almost certainly pick the older one, but alas.

    1. Re:About 'old fogies' link in TFA by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      It's common sense to shoot yourself in the foot and go for the guy with less flexibility? No wonder our economy is so fucked up. Reward the one trick ponies and screw the versatile guys. Bravo!

    2. Re:About 'old fogies' link in TFA by david.emery · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between writing a 1000 line application, and contributing to a 100,000 line system. How many 10 year programmers have experience with multiple, multi-year, large systems? How many know how to architect them to, for example, identify and/or avoid issues of scalability, concurrency, etc? Some of that -can be taught-, but how many of you got taught large-scale concurrency/distributed systems in school? (Example: raise your hands if you can give an example of 'byzantine failure'. Keep your hands up if you've actually experienced it. And stand up if you were able to locate, recreate or otherwise analyze, and fix 'heisenbugs' in a deployed/running application.)

    3. Re:About 'old fogies' link in TFA by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      you're showing your lack of experience here. If you think a programmer is a guy who types the symbols into a text editor and keeps up to date with the latest syntaxes, then I can show you how to save a fortune by outsourcing all your coders to various 3rd word countries. After all, one guy who knows language x is as good as another, right?

      However, if you think a programmer is much more than the language used, that architecture, design and overall avoiding-known-mistakes is more important, then you'll want to go with the older guy who might not be more productive in typing out code, but will be more productive when you count the lack of bugs and problems you have to resolve later.

  19. COBOL is secure by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 2

    It may be hard to maintain, but COBOL works and it works without too many bugs. COBOL is usually replaced with web GUIs which are prone to exploits and require a lot more processing power. They do look pretty though.

    1. Re:COBOL is secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The language of choice has nothing to do with how many or how few bugs you have. People with years of experience doing something in one language produces fewer bugs in the first place. Secondly, you can bring an entire MF region down a lot easier than you can bring an entire server down from just 1 program acting up. Third, the complexities in rendering a GUI on the server side has more to do with how you are receiving the data and what you need to do with it before you can display it on the screen. Most applications written today on the web place a lot more processing requirements on the client side than the server.

    2. Re:COBOL is secure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, you can bring an entire MF region down a lot easier than you can bring an entire server down from just 1 program acting up.

      You just illustrated that you know absolutely *nothing* about modern mainframes.

  20. This article is what's laughable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but these people are completely out of touch with reality in federal IT. I'm 25 and have been working in Federal IT since finishing college three years ago and of the 3 large DoD systems I've worked on, two of them have essentially all of their business logic and all of their batch processing written in COBOL with a fugly JSP front-end, and the third is a Java EE/SEAM app (re-engineered from an old Unisys language..) that directly interfaces with one of those previous two systems so it still relies on COBOL as well.

    99% of the devs that get hired around here (recent college grads like myself being one of few exceptions) have at least a couple of years of prior experience developing in COBOL because, guess what? Most everything around here in some way shape or form involves a COBOL batch process or back-end. Sure, we have lots of newer stuff like .Net, Java (SEAM, Spring, older Struts projects, etc.), Flex, etc. but there is still TONS of stuff that will never leave COBOL. The only COBOL systems that die around here do so because they've been replaced by an ERP (most are only on life-support because they're "scheduled" to be replaced... in a decade) or they're still hosted on a mainframe and never got tech-refreshed to a *nix mid-tier system. Generally when something does get tech-refreshed it costs so much money and misses so much that it would have been cheaper just to hire a couple of maintenance programmers to keep the COBOL system running and/or put a pretty new front-end on and call it a day.

    I won't even touch on all the rules and regulations involved that make this even more of a cluster, but know that most of the devs working with this stuff are good people working hard to improve things, we just tend to have our hands tied. I'm all for the big bosses having a call to arms for innovation and "AMERICAHHHH FUCK YEAH!!!!!" to but for existing systems, in most cases there is too much money poured down the drain in an effort to attempt to tech refresh things that work perfectly fine in COBOL.

  21. Wrong priorities! by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most good coders are not going to be hugely interested in whether they are a GS-12 or if they have a shot at moving to GS-13. They want decent pay, good working conditions and colleagues, and interesting projects.

    There are good people (and great bosses) in the federal government. The problem is that there is also a huge amount of dead weight: petty people building their personal little empires and playing pathetic office politics. The "iron rule of bureaucracy" will not be denied - even if you are lucky enough to work in a super organization, don't worry: its soul will eventually be sucked out by bureaucrats interested only in extending the bureaucracy.

    This is why government organizations should be kept to a minimum. In industry, when the deadwood has accumulated, either it gets cleared out or the company dies. In government, you just get a funding increase.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Wrong priorities! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why government organizations should be kept to a minimum. In industry, when the deadwood has accumulated, either it gets cleared out or the company dies. In government, you just get a funding increase.

      I agree with the deadwood issue, but there are also some dynamics that favor having work done by government. The big one is that there's essentially no profit motive. In a well-functioning federal agency, all of the staff are encouraged to "do the right thing" for the people they serve, rather than maximize profit.

      Secondly, because it's harder to fire someone from the U.S. federal government than from a U.S. private company, employees may be more willing to report illegal activity, because there may be less fear of effective retribution. Although my confidence in this has been eroded in recent years by seeing less whistle-blower protection than I would have expected.

    2. Re:Wrong priorities! by Digicaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The big one is that there's essentially no profit motive. In a well-functioning federal agency, all of the staff are encouraged to "do the right thing" for the people they serve, rather than maximize profit.

      You've touched on something that I discuss with my socialist friends on a regular basis. They fail to recognize that there's always a profit motive. In government jobs its not a corporate motive, it's a personal motive. I'd argue that personal profit motives are much worse than corporate profit motives, because corporate motives are typically enabled by groups of people that are effectively hindered by their disagreements. In individual profit motives, there is no such limitation. Also others are not likely to call them out on their behavior due to fears of confrontation, and because they receive little or no incentive to ever raise their voice. Most of the time, they just don't want to be noticed, and calling out someone else is a great way to get the wrong kind of attention.

      In a nutshell, an overwhelming number of government employees "do the right thing" for the people they serve, true enough. You just have to remember that they consider themselves as the #1 person they serve.

    3. Re:Wrong priorities! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I can only speak to my own experience. I've worked in industry, academia, and govt. Of all my jobs, the govt. job is the one where my coworkers' and my motivations have been the least self-serving. YMMV, obviously.

    4. Re:Wrong priorities! by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      When I was working for the man, there was no profit motive for me, either. Sure, managers had their targets and I, in theory, might receive a bonus. However, the bonus was so small and tied to things beyond my control that it might as well not have existed.

      I guess most of the federal agencies I've dealt with weren't well-functioning (or have a differing opinion on what the "right thing" is).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:Wrong priorities! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I guess most of the federal agencies I've dealt with weren't well-functioning (or have a differing opinion on what the "right thing" is).

      Perhaps. Although, from looking at other comments on this article, it's starting to sound like all kinds of organizations can be severaly dysfunctional.

    6. Re:Wrong priorities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think "industry" is any more efficient than gov't then you've obviously never worked in industry.

      You can't compare a gov't department to a three person start up in Mountain View. The proper comparison is with, say, a GE or a Kellogg or a Monsanto. Now talk to one of those guys about office politics and I can guarantee you you'll be thanking the gods you're in gov't. At least you know tomorrow the bitch in the next cubicle over isn't going to get you fired.

    7. Re:Wrong priorities! by oatworm · · Score: 1

      I agree with the deadwood issue, but there are also some dynamics that favor having work done by government. The big one is that there's essentially no profit motive. In a well-functioning federal agency, all of the staff are encouraged to "do the right thing" for the people they serve, rather than maximize profit.

      The real problem with the lack of profit motive isn't feather-bedding or anything crazy like that, though a fair amount of that goes on. It happens in the private sector, too. The real issue is that management is kept accountable by profitability - if they get penny-wise and pound foolish, the market will (eventually) punish them for their shortsightedness (yes, yes, after Wall Street's computers spike share prices for a month so investment bankers can extract every ounce of value out of the company first). In government, however, the only thing keeping anyone accountable is popular opinion. If the people think you're saving money, even if it's by throwing together 23 different layers of "accountability" between a funding request and the request being fulfilled, they'll reward you. If the people think you're spending too much, regardless of value you're returning to the community, your funding will be cut. The result is that pay and funding are directly tied to appearance of performance (plus bits and pieces of patronage, where available), not to actual performance or value.

      The worst part is when the same people running government institutions decide to treat their systems as "best practices" and insist on forcing private companies to adhere to them, too. Then you end up with well-meaning but ill conceived bits of legislation like Sarbannes-Oxley.

    8. Re:Wrong priorities! by rmstar · · Score: 1

      They fail to recognize that there's always a profit motive.

      That would include "making the world a better place, so that I live in a better world".

      In a nutshell, an overwhelming number of government employees "do the right thing" for the people they serve, true enough. You just have to remember that they consider themselves as the #1 person they serve.

      You are so small minded.

    9. Re:Wrong priorities! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Secondly, because it's harder to fire someone from the U.S. federal government than from a U.S. private company, employees may be more willing to report illegal activity, because there may be less fear of effective retribution.

      The problem is that the same thing that may make employees more willing to report illegal activity also makes them more willing to treat the people they are supposed to serve like their servants.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:Wrong priorities! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but I'm not seeing that happen.

    11. Re:Wrong priorities! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      The big one is that there's essentially no profit motive.

      No, their motive is glory and "being somebody", not profit, though spending tax payer dollars freely sure is a nice perk.

      In a well-functioning federal agency, all of the staff are encouraged to "do the right thing" for the people they serve, rather than maximize profit.

      In a poorly-functioning one--the majority--the incentive is to not rock the boat, to do just enough to get by, and to keep up appearances long enough to retire at taxpayer expense.

      Secondly, because it's harder to fire someone from the U.S. federal government than from a U.S. private company, employees may be more willing to report illegal activity, because there may be less fear of effective retribution.

      No, time and history have shown that the size and power of the Federal government, and the corresponding high level of corruption and graft, if anything is only likely to encourage people to go right along with it, rather than trying to fight against a large and overwhelming powerful system.

      Although my confidence in this has been eroded in recent years by seeing less whistle-blower protection than I would have expected.

      As well as other aspects of your theory which don't at all match up to reality, I'm sure...

    12. Re:Wrong priorities! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Citations, please.

    13. Re:Wrong priorities! by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The big one is that there's essentially no profit motive. In a well-functioning federal agency, all of the staff are encouraged to "do the right thing" for the people they serve, rather than maximize profit.

      You've touched on something that I discuss with my socialist friends on a regular basis. They fail to recognize that there's always a profit motive. In government jobs its not a corporate motive, it's a personal motive. I'd argue that personal profit motives are much worse than corporate profit motives, because corporate motives are typically enabled by groups of people that are effectively hindered by their disagreements. In individual profit motives, there is no such limitation. Also others are not likely to call them out on their behavior due to fears of confrontation, and because they receive little or no incentive to ever raise their voice. Most of the time, they just don't want to be noticed, and calling out someone else is a great way to get the wrong kind of attention.

      In a nutshell, an overwhelming number of government employees "do the right thing" for the people they serve, true enough. You just have to remember that they consider themselves as the #1 person they serve.

      But don't the same personal profit motives exist whether in a government position or a private position? If so, they really don't factor into the equation as they more of a constant.

    14. Re:Wrong priorities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or experienced.

    15. Re:Wrong priorities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote] This is why government organizations should be kept to a minimum. [/quote]

      Your straw man is showing.

      You might as well argue "the problem with government is government, so the answer is no government".

      The real problem is that instead of making personal accountability something that government employees are required to have, we have decided that 500 layers of bureaucracy is somehow a decent substitute.

      Instead of letting a manager spend 4 hours deciding which laptop is best for their needs, we make sure that they waste at least 60 hours, lest someone start shrieking about no-bid contracts.

      Here is my proposal: we empower any government official anywhere to make purchasing decisions the same as if they worked in industry. If they fuck up, they get canned, same as they would in industry. I guarantee that fixes more than half of the inefficiencies in the system.

    16. Re:Wrong priorities! by iter8 · · Score: 2

      I can only speak to my own experience. I've worked in industry, academia, and govt. Of all my jobs, the govt. job is the one where my coworkers' and my motivations have been the least self-serving. YMMV, obviously.

      That reflects my experience. I work in academia now. It has advantages over the other two in many ways, but the squabbles seem to be over more petty issues (joke: why are academic politics so vicious? Because the stakes are so low). When I worked in a government research lab, there was a high degree of camaraderie, especially among the science and tech folks. There was definitely dead wood in the bureaucracy, but there's plenty of that in corporate world. There was essentially no dead wood in the labs that I worked in. YMMV. When I was in startups, the principals seemed to be dedicated to the making the organization work, but to much of the rest of the crew, it was just a job.

    17. Re:Wrong priorities! by obsess5 · · Score: 1

      Any organization (government, corporate, academic, etc.) larger than a small startup develops bureaucracies; it's the nature of an organization. If you think bureaucracies and deadwood are only found in government, take a good hard look around you at the company you work for. Think about the unrelated companies you deal with daily. (You're going to tell me that spending hours on the phone with a private health insurance company trying to get something resolved is "better" or "more efficient" than the same amount of time spent at the DMV?) Government is not immune to bureaucratic problems, but neither are private companies.

    18. Re:Wrong priorities! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You have never worked in a large private organisation if you actually believe that.

    19. Re:Wrong priorities! by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      Spot on. The private sector is not some magical world where everything is wonderfully efficient. There's office politics, overspending, empire building and mind-numbing bureaucracy everywhere. That's why Libertaria, land of the free market will be no better or even worse than what we have now because large businesses don't become magically efficient just because they have other large businesses for competition.

    20. Re:Wrong priorities! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      the govt. job is the one where my coworkers' and my motivations have been the least self-serving.

      Then why did the Soviet Union collapse?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  22. Dilbert by Aggrajag · · Score: 2

    I always remember the following Dilbert strip from 1997 when I hear the words Cobol programmer:

    http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1997-11-04/

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

      I really wish they would use Bob the Dinosaur more often on that strip.

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

      Geek? nah, you're just a poser. Linux/Unix = fast. The Dilbert comic without the other crap.

      Here's how you should have done it:
      http://dilbert.com/fast/1997-11-04/

    3. Re:Dilbert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he doesn't have to learn UNIX.

  23. Small businesses too by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Small businesses are often quite good at making really bad decisions quickly, and taking forever over important things. Just like big businesses.

    I once worked in a small business that was the exception. Every issue that came up was quickly dealt with with a director level meeting. We took decisions and followed them through. Unfortunately we grew so fast I ended up with a bad case of burnout, but having downsized to a lower intensity career I've often seen the effects of decision incapability in suppliers, vendors and in house.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  24. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, you're going to have to wait your turn until the rest of us will be done doing the same thing after we retire. We're older than you, we planned to do this before you, so you'll have to wait your turn.

  25. Read some history then by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    Quite a lot of the inhabitants of the Caribbean were very friendly towards Columbus and his successors, and you know how that turned out. Anybody capable of building an interstellar space ship is likely to regard you as farm animal, not equal. Unlike dogs, we are not particularly cute.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Read some history then by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      You know how to measure cuteness in the aliens culture!!!! BURN him he must be one of THEM;)

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    2. Re:Read some history then by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      I don't think we have any idea of what they would think of us but it is a chance I am willing to take.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
  26. So long as it's PDP-8 or 9989 by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Of course, those were the days when anybody with a functioning brain could just put down the opcodes on the fly. With the PDP-8 you almost knew which gates each opcode bit was controlling. And the RCA 1802! Quicker to type in hex than fire up the assembler.

    Now remind me how to adjust the ignition timing on a modern ECU. Hint: there isn't a little screw on the distributor any more.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:So long as it's PDP-8 or 9989 by EETech1 · · Score: 2

      With most new ECMs you simply alter the pattern coming from the crank position sensor real time into a slightly different pattern that gives you the spark you want. It also allows you to raise the rev-limiter as well. The ECM calculates the RPM tooth to tooth, so if it thinks the engine is @ 7000 RPM when its not scheduling spark, and after fuel injection has started (sequences are start angle + time and will not be cut short) you will be fine! There's only certain spots a in a rev where it has to 'think' its going the right speed so you have quite a window to trick it into thinking its in a different position in order to get the end result you desire.

      An AVR @ 16 Mhz can easily simulate a 60 tooth pattern at 12000 RPM, That's only a 12Khz output freq, that's nothing, and you still have enough clock cycles to modify the MAP sensor too. The best part is the stock ECM (and dealer) is none the wiser:)

      I called my source code The_ECManipulator

      Cheers

  27. Reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Bit of Fry & Laurie: My Ass sketch

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUKOebCbINc

  28. That's coding, not programming by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Your comment would make sense if you were simply looking for coders. But if you are looking at programmers - people who turn top level concepts into software - the C++ guy will know all the things that go wrong, all the "this works" higher level schemas that 5 years of Scala alone won't have taught anybody. Twenty years ago the business problems were basically the same. The fact that Microsoft could screw up a leap year 29th February in 2012 shows exactly why there is no substitute for wide experience.

    I'll add a point, perhaps a little inflammatory. Your grammar and syntax are not very good. That suggests you don't routinely communicate at senior management level, where that kind of thing gets noticed. Perhaps your comment reflects an inability to see the bigger picture, and your under-valuation of experience is linked to that.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  29. Who are these two knuckleheads trying to kid? by fotoflojoe · · Score: 1

    It's the public sector, no one innovates there.

    1. Re:Who are these two knuckleheads trying to kid? by david.emery · · Score: 1

      Really? Are you using the Internet? Guess where that came from, "knucklehead". DARPA funded the basic research, and then DoD direct contracts funded a lot of the BBN switch development. That's just one example.

    2. Re:Who are these two knuckleheads trying to kid? by fotoflojoe · · Score: 1

      I guess you told me.

  30. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except when some dumbass kid writes that older coders can get "obscenely high-paid" work of any kind! In the tech industry seeing ANYBODY over 50 working (even on a short term contract) is a rarity and probably a fluke! And seeing a 60+ COBOL programmer implies that you are hallucinating!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  31. Real programmers by midgetpoker · · Score: 1

    A real programmer can write COBOL in any language.

  32. No experience required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, rather than looking for programmers who may have good experience of delivering and supporting critical systems over a long period of time, we prefer l33t kids who create everything at web-scale, who think functional programming is new, and think github is a backup solution.

    Cool. That is so neat. But wait, my tax dollars are paying for this? Hmm......

  33. I thought they were all on private islands by russotto · · Score: 1

    I thought all the COBOL programmers tacked a zero onto their rates in 1999, did one last deathmarch for Y2K, then retired.

    1. Re:I thought they were all on private islands by Centurix · · Score: 1

      They took that zero and bought an airship. They're up there with Cory Doctorow writing COBOL sci-fi novels and mowing Astro-turf.

      --
      Task Mangler
  34. Also work for feds, and I agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can hardly imagine a "kick ass innovator" being happy with a typical federal job.

    Any innovation would have to go though untold layers of bureaucracy before it was implemented. Also, what gets implemented is not the best ideas, but the ideas that get the approval of know-nothing officials. What gets implemented depends on contacts from the good-old-boy network, political campaign contributions, that sort of thing.

  35. Not amused by kstahmer · · Score: 1

    Her Majesty, Grace Hopper, is not amused.

    --
    HRH The Duke of Windsor
  36. I've seen it all. by lasermike026 · · Score: 0

    I've been a coder, UNIX admin, Linux admin for close to 15 years. I've seen one crappy programming/scripting/whatever language come and go. COBOL is reliable, effective, and easy to use. COBOL was designed by Read Admiral Grace Hopper, a founder of the technology we use today. I wish I had COBOL for Linux. Then maybe I wouldn't have to listen to some dev squeak about some amazing, fantastic, BROKEN, INEFFICIENT, and often STUPID programming language. And what do I care about what some CTO thinks? It's not like he knows anything other than the art of bul!@#$.

    1. Re:I've seen it all. by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wish I had COBOL for Linux

      Looks like it's still a work in progress, but: http://www.opencobol.org/

    2. Re:I've seen it all. by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

      Or TinyCOBOL. Gentoo has both in portage.

    3. Re:I've seen it all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want RPG for Linux... Old school RPG. The cycle rules.

    4. Re:I've seen it all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microfocus has one for Linux.

      It's Visual Cobol.

      Works, too.

  37. If it ain't broke... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's so scary about running COBOL? If there are systems written in COBOL that are doing what they need to do, why is that scary? You could spend millions of dollars rewriting the system in something more kick ass (not sure what's considered kick ass enough for the US Government - Java? .Net? Ruby?) and then you end up with million dollar system that does the exact same thing as the system before, except for the inevitable bugs that creep into any large software project.

    Or you can start from scratch, and write new specs for the system and build a system with new kick ass functionality, then you end up spending millions getting the stakeholders together to write the specs, then millions more actually writing the new kick ass software, and decade later, it's been deployed with all of the major bugs worked out (or worked around). Except that whatever kick ass software you chose to write it in is no longer kick ass, so you need to start over again with something more kick ass.

    I worked at a company like that once - the new CEO decided that the old system written in C was no longer kick ass enough, so he decreed that it had to be written in something modern and kick ass -- in this case, it was Visual Basic that was deemed kick ass enough for it. So the company spent years specing and rewriting a system to be deployed across 1500 remote locations. In testing, they found that their VSAT communications system couldn't provide enough bandwidth and adequate latency to each location, so they embarked upon an expensive project to replace all of the VSAT connections with high bandwidth wired connections (this predated DSL and other cheap ways to get fast ethernet connections). In the meantime, the core developers of the original project saw the writing on the wall and left the company to start their own consulting company - they made a killing maintaining the original system while the company focused on building the replacement.

    5 years later, this 2 year project still wasn't ready for deployment, the company got bought out before the project ever got off the ground, and I'm sure the CEO got a healthy bonus for his "vision".

    1. Re:If it ain't broke... by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Or you can start from scratch, and write new specs for the system and build a system with new kick ass functionality, then you end up spending millions getting the stakeholders together to write the specs, then millions more actually writing the new kick ass software, and decade later, it's been deployed with all of the major bugs worked out (or worked around). Except that whatever kick ass software you chose to write it in is no longer kick ass, so you need to start over again with something more kick ass.

      This is what the US government has been doing since the 90's. Except the deployment part. And several of the failed projects are in the hundreds of millions per failure.

      Have these guys had a successful large scale federal software project yet? They appear to be the "something more kick ass" failure phase.

      Posted by an active 60 year old IBM midrange RPG programmer (AS/400, iseries, IBM i, etc.) in response to the dude that thinks 60 year old IBM programmers are an hallucination.

      My RPG open source site:
      http://code.google.com/p/rdwrites/downloads/list

    2. Re:If it ain't broke... by baegucb · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Thrifty corporation back in the 80s when I worked there. If it was, you forgot to mention using VSAT to the sites in the Pacific Northwest, where it rains all the time. (I was doing network stuff for them back then, and set up the scheduling for data retrieval/deployment to all those sites). PITA. But they had a virtually unlimited IT budget from the parent corporation at the time, Pacific Gas and Electric.

    3. Re:If it ain't broke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear!

      "what's considered kick ass enough for the US Government - Java? .Net? Ruby?" }cheapshot{Ada}cheapshot{

    4. Re:If it ain't broke... by khipu · · Score: 1

      What's so scary about running COBOL?

      To an entrepreneur, what's scary about it is that you make money by getting people to spend on the latest fad. And if you're an ex-Microsoft hack, like von Roekel, what's scary about it is that it doesn't put you on the Microsoft upgrade treadmill and doesn't funnel money to your old employer.

  38. Twice the 300 bad asses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Double the number of bad asses where signed up to be the Presidential Innovation Fellows. Only the ones with the plastic 6-pack and the ability to wield the spear of enlightened mind in a coordinated thrusting motion where selected.

  39. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The younger guys don't see them because they're up front debugging the PHP code to the new uber cool banking interface. The grey beard COBOL guys are in the back optimizing the banking software--the _real_ banking software. The younger guys have no reason to think about the grey beards. They're too busy debugging their javascript RPC library so someone can can display their account balance on Facebook. Anyway, they've never once had a problem having their check or wire deposit go through.

  40. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should tell that to the place I work. I see as many people 45+ as I do my age.

  41. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where the hell do you work? Wait, I can guess the answer, Sillicon Valley? I'm right, aren't I? So, the point being that just because you don't see any 60+ COBOL guys around, doesn't mean they aren't. You know all those legacy systems... the ones that have more up time than your life span? The ones that were installed before you were walking, and haven't moved since? Because I DO. So does your local government office, and your local bank, and your local CC processor. Did you know that your water company probably still uses and old AS400 for account management? Because I do. Did you know that every street light in the greater Portland (OR) area is tied to a positively ancient server running some obscure COBOL? I do. Do you know the guy that gets paid to keep that server running, despite 3 separate efforts over the years (totaling many millions of dollars) to replace it? I do. Want to know what he gets paid to be the ONLY person in the state with access to that machine? I'll bet you wouldn't believe me.
     
    What you kids in SV think constitutes the computer world... well, lets just say that you are standing in a valley, and you can't see the rest of the world from there.

  42. Joke all you like by excelsior_gr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You people can joke all you like about old languages.. I'm getting paid to use, maintain and write FORTRAN code.
    In the past, I have written FOSS in FORTRAN and put it in the public domain. People still download it on a weekly basis.
    FORTRAN has gone through 10 updates and code that was written on cardboard in the sixties can work together with OO code from last week.
    FORTRAN is the back-end for the NumPy and SciPy numerical libraries. Python is just a fancy way of writing FORTRAN.
    And, no, I'm not an old fart (yet), but I can chase you off my lawn nevertheless.
    Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time...

    1. Re:Joke all you like by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      I remember back in 1995 speaking with a college administrator who refused to believe that FORTRAN was still in active use. Seventeen years later, and it's got more users than it did then.
      It will probably outlive us all.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    2. Re:Joke all you like by wcgOtt · · Score: 1

      I worked on FORTRAN orbit prediction software and later wrote an entire satellite signal prediction system in FORTRAN (on a Mac, no less!) Like COBOL, FORTRAN has its comfortable place entrenched in legacy scientific and engineering software. I miss those days.

  43. Small business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So complain about the problems of government or big business. Why are you there?

    If you work for yourself, (and have the balls to do so), you set the procurement policies.

    As far as COBOL is concerned, if tech lives somewhere, it has to be maintained. Relays, vacuum tubes, antennas, steam engines.... they are out there running now. Can you fix them, C++-Guys? Do you know enough about how they work to make decent decisions on how to replace them? Do you know your way around assembly language?

    Laugh if you want, but the fact that there are people out here who know enough to do difficult work so that others can make little toys like Angry Birds run on hardware they don't understand and achieve what for results? Entertained idiots?

  44. what the fuck? by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    sorry, but this is one one my biggest pet peeves. using asterisks to "censor" the word does absolutely nothing, except come off as condecending to the reader. it is not more polite, as anyone with half a brain knows what the word is, thereby accomplishing nothing. shouldn't we finally grow the fuck up and realize that butt, ass, rear, et al., are synonyms and equally interchangeable in any conversation. applying childish morality scales to words only makes said people look like simple, childish, self-righteous cunts. yes, i am thinking of the children.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:what the fuck? by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      As Nathan Hale once said, "I regret that I have but one asterisk for my country."

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  45. Here's a good example. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    We had to replace a system at a telco used to figure out all the updates for phonebooks to send to yellowpages. But no-one knew all the details of what it did. We inferred a lot but wanted to look at the code to make sure. The code was written in the late 60s or early 70s and was working good for at least 30 years. Their system deleted files that hadn't been touched in 5 or 10 years. No-one had to do any bug fixes in at least 25 years, so no-one touched or even looked for the source code files in all that time. And that was a good thing because the system had removed the source code at least 20 years before we got there to replace that system.

    Fortunately one of the old timers set to retire in the next month came along and said,
    "I wondered when someone was going to ask to look at the source code again. I kept a copy in my personal directory. Do you want a copy?"

    Thank goodness he had it and saved us a ton of time. That code ran fine for all those years and really didn't need to be replaced except they reasonably wanted to maintain only one type of architecture.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  46. That's... Cool... heh heh... heh heh! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These guys reminded me of the web developer in this old IBM commercial. Yeah man, let's put flaming skulls on there, it'll be kick ass! If either of those two guys looked at source code they'd probably have an aneurysm.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  47. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was actually offered a COBOL job this week - life insurance company backend. Pay is 65k/year in USD, which is not that bad for an entry level job in Germany.

  48. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All the COBOL programmers I know are in forced retirement, and can't even get work at $25/hr.

    Those consultants you're referring to are the ones who wrote that shit to begin with and they're well connected with the banks already.

  49. Snowcrash by darthlurker · · Score: 1

    I'm betting neither of these two ever read it.

    "It's the Government of the United States," Juanita says.
    "Where hackers go to die".

  50. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just hired two programmers, one is 59 and one is 61. I'm sure it's due to the tech: C++ / VB6 and some .NET, but I needed developers to maintain a system we won a contract to support. Perhaps I'm odd ... but age never factors into my hiring decisions.

  51. Government can be choosy by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    You know what? You work for the government, you get a pension. And you don't have to deal with employment "at will" bullshit. And yes, you can make 6 figures working for the government, and yes you work on things that probably matter more than what you work on now.

    So if he wants people with more impressive skills, there's no reason he can't get them. I mean it's an old, verbose language. I doubt it has many advanced features, arcane syntax not withstanding.

  52. COBOL Rules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I took programming in college 80-83 I took Pascal and BASIC, but COBOL and Fortran were viable options. As it turns out Pascal was used to program the Mac, Fortran became a language of science, and COBOL with all its mocking became the language of big iron and mission critical applications so pervasive and persistent no series of program language fads or legion of Windblows installers could overcome it.

    COBOL is in our lives. Someone should make Object/perl/python COBOL. :D

    If I learned COBOL I would totally be making bank in programming now.

    JJ

  53. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Um, no. You don't see them because they are all valuable enough to the industries that need them, and mature enough and proven their work ethic enough that they're all working half days from home or their vacation homes, then golfing in the afternoon.

    It's a whole different industry at this level and age kiddo.

  54. ... political points ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HMMM.
    What is the big difference between the private and public sectors?
    Is it that ONLY "Republicans" slander the public sector?
    In my not-so-humble opinion Republicrats slander anyone and everything in their re-election efforts.
    ---
    Having worked in both public and private sectors as a licensed and registered "tech" worker, ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE; a suit is a suit is a suit; I have yet to work for anyone who passed to the 'dark side' who was worth a damn either before or after.

  55. Good luck with that...Sensing Damage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why there are "go to guys/gals" and "informal networks" (no relation to the org chart). The internet isn't the only thing that routes around damage.

  56. "But sir, innovation isn't about being a badass.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...unless we're willing to admit that people like Benjamin Franklin were badasses, themselves - but even then, the very suggestion of being a "badass" does not sound to me like it could be in close alignment with goals of technological development. I don't suppose it merits much more comment than that.

    P.S. It would be inadvisable to piss on peoples' shoes - COBOL programmers or otherwise - if one wishes to sincerely motivate people, whether in regards to technological development or pretty much anything else.

  57. Sorry to rain on your +5 Funny, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need for silly regular expressions.

    I think you mean globbing. A regular expression for "a**" would be something like "a..".

  58. this is /., not /-fic Re:a**? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know we are all testosterone-laden here, but at least try to show some professionalism.

    Please don't use the phrase "double pointer" and the word "ass" in the same thread.

    ( o ) --- ( o )

  59. Recipe for Bullshit by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    Yeah -- let's get the creme de la creme of self proclaimed bad asses leveraging this weeks hot tech.
    Coming soon: Node.js powered jQuery sites that only work in Webkit -- because IE, Firefox and those "other" browsers aren't cool enough. Wait -- accessibility Standards? Who the Fuck needs those? It works fine on the fucking iPad. Oh the Gimps and Retards? Fuck them.

  60. One small question by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    So, Mr VanRoekel, would you care to list the programming languages you're competent in?

    I suspect we might be in a tumbleweed and bells situation.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  61. Is that what you get for "change" ?? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    The guy got voted in because he promised "Change"

    If that's the "Change", I rather have the whole buck

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  62. I agree with this hardware. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might, but a big part of their functionality is in the hardware they run on. Mainframe hardware and personal computer (let alone server) hardware are very different.You really can't have one without the other.

  63. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by St.Creed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've never understood the reasoning behind not wanting to hire old guys. I can understand why you wouldn't want to hire a grumpy, inflexible old veteran who insists on recoding everything into COBOL because he has no other skills. But those are a minority as far as I can tell. I know several older DBA's, system architects, designers with even nation-wide fame: they get hired every day by the *smart* companies that want to ship product.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  64. And who can blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want frat boys to do their systems.

    I wouldn't mind a couple of frat boys doing my system. ;)

  65. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Not really. You still need to declare variables, state their type, etc.

  66. great by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Now it's time for "all you youngins' sit yer asses down and listen to MY old story! Back when things were for real, and still are today! It's still there, children, the old code in the guts of the president."

    I do volunteer-work at a charity warehouse where people donate stuff to be cleaned up, repaired, and sold. A lot of it is old crap. A lot of the people who volunteer there are over fifty. Whenever some old piece of junk comes in I take the time to eyeball it and see whether it'll be worth putting out, because it's true that there was a time when they "built them like they used to", and things from a certain era tend to have long lifetimes. By contrast, a lot of things built more recently aren't even serviceable (literally, you can't get in and clean them up or repair them without breaking important things on the way in), and while "serviceable" went out of fashion as a term meaning "not going straight to a scrap heap", it was right around the same time that the market started seeing "disposable" versions of everything.

    I digress. So whenever I'm about to scrap something that's just plain not going to be any good, and one of these older folks sees it, oops, it's time to hold up the show. "Don't throw that thing out, those things are better than the ones they make today". They all have to do it. It's either hide the fact that this ten-pound, steel clothes iron with the rust innards is getting dismantled and the copper and steel separated, or I'm going to have to relinquish it to the hands of somebody who feels the need to trumpet the triumphs of yesteryear, even in the face of the fact that what we're celebrating is the object's demise, the fact that no, it did not last literally forever. "Oh, well, I guessh you can shcrap it, shunny. Bon voyage, old toasterrrrr*gasp*"

    What I see in comments here closely resembles all of that. People going on about how things of yesteryear were so much better and so much stronger. Or still being used today. But the article isn't about "COBOL will last forever!" it's about, "gee, everybody, time to rip all the rotten old code out of the guts of the president so he can digest the foodstuffs of tomorrow".

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:great by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Double-great, now it's time for all the responses that are all clones of:

      "Oh, yeah? Well COBOL means $$$ so fat chance!"

      Not that it's a worthwhile language or anything, just that it's "being used by old $$$ businesses everywhere in the Known World so better COBOL that ass before I hunt you down and strike you down in fear of change."

      For real, get rid of COBOL and stop trumpeting old crap that's only around because of $$$ legacy.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:great by Ollabelle · · Score: 1

      Come on, man, this is Slashdot. Since when do the comments ever have anything to do with the article?

      --
      Ibid.
  67. Re:"But sir, innovation isn't about being a badass by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Oh, yeah dude totally, dude, Benjals was totally like badass, dude. BFF.

    Like, dude, those glasses that he made for seeing the secret map? Gnarly.

    Oh, dude, or how he caught the electrics in the jar? So for real. So badass.

    I have an idea, let's go around to elementary schools and see how many kids are *still* being taught that Benjamin Franklin caught electricity in a jar, or that Washington would never tell a lie, or that the pilgrims sat down with the "injuns" at a commemorative feast.

    I would be pleased just to poll how many children are still taught to say "injun" in what regions. Just to point out that some things are held onto past their time for reasons not always well understood.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  68. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Raenex · · Score: 2

    Want to know what he gets paid to be the ONLY person in the state with access to that machine?

    Coffee and donuts?

  69. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Raenex · · Score: 2

    Thanks.

    You're welcome?

  70. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    Objective-C is to C as Javascript is to Java. Thanks.

    Javascript is an extension of Java?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  71. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a 60+ COBOL programmer. I now program in other languages too (French, Greek...) But also PHP, ecmascript, Objective-C... I wish I had friends..

  72. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by wcgOtt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good for you. Unfortunately, this attitude is not pervasive. At 45 I don't consider myself old yet when I see posts from 20somethings stating you don't see anyone older than 50, it's disheartening. I have an engineering background and approach software development as an engineering activity. I would hope companies want to hire disciplined, productive developers but the norm seems to be to hire based on an acronym alphabet soup. During interviews, it's rare to hear questions about your development approach, it's often about "how many years of XYZ do you have?" it's not the programming languages that are important or the brand of datavase server, it should be "how good of an engineer am I hiring." Also, equally unfortunate is the prefiltering HR departments do on resumes, older engineers often don't even get an interview. I've removed about half of my experience from my resume so it doesn't go so far back - age is easy to deduce when you experience going back to 80s.

  73. Beats me why people are so dismissive of COBOL by 36-bitter · · Score: 1

    It does a good job at stuff that nobody else seems to care about. And anyone who's seen XML should stop calling COBOL wordy. I still use COBOL when I need what it does.

  74. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use MicroFocus (originally AcuCOBOL) - works fine.

  75. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean duma**

  76. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I mean dumba**

  77. Laughing at the wrong thing... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    I find the idea of these guys being the federal CIO/CTO after the next presidential election laughable.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  78. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Passman · · Score: 1

    All the COBOL programmers I know are in forced retirement, and can't even get work at $25/hr.

    Really?

    Send me their contact info. My employer is currently paying finder fees for new PA & SA hires.

    --
    Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  79. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Meski · · Score: 2

    I'm 45+, you insensitive clod(s)!

    AFAIK, I've only done COBOL once, for a diesel sequencer IIRC. Most of the rest has been c and c++

  80. Should I shoot myself now or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being a COBOLer, I have to say, jobs are hard to come by. BUT, I also gotta say when they do come, they are very profitable because there are SO few COBOLers who aren't on walkers now.

  81. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only can they get it but there aren’t enough of them to go aroundI know because I am not that old and I had to learn COBOL to be able to take on some projects that my company couldn't otherwise staff. Luckily, it's not actually all that hard to pick up. I spend about a week reading a book, asked for sample program source code from the customer, and installed COBOL onto a spare Linux machine I had to play with it and learn.

  82. just remember: most startups fail by khipu · · Score: 1

    I really don't want government employees to "disrupt government" or to bring an "entrepreneurial mindset" or "innovation" to government. Entrepreneurs and their innovation carries enormous risks, and I don't want these people gambling with my tax dollars.

    Of course, van Roekel doesn't even have entrepreneurial credentials anyway, he is a rich old MIcrosoft fogy, which means that he likely understands neither fiscal restraint nor the needs of IT in government.

    Come next election, just remember who hired these jokers and put US government IT in the hands of Microsoft cronies.

  83. Reposting a really really old usenix post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A modern computer without cobol and fortran is like chocolate cake without mustard and ketchup"
    (A quote from usenix, at least 25 years old....cobol was old at least 25 years ago)
    Also, I remember some computer history when I studied a programming languages course in university: The cobol developers rushed to create a language to use with the newly available hardware. Since the hardware was developing rapidly, they expected software to develop equally rapidly, so they rushed cobol out the door. They never expected it to be in use 6 months later, and 5 years after the fact, when they realised that people were still using it, they tried to make changes to it but were restricted quite a bit in the name of backward compatibility. They publicly stated (Grace Hopper among them) that if they had expected it to last more than 6 months, they would have done a better job of it in the first place.

  84. converter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they should be paying those remaining few cobol developers to do is write a cobol to C or Java/C# converter or something. And, put the final nail in that coffin, before there is no one left who can write it.

  85. The new Navajo Codetalkers by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is the Fed's solution to combating cyberterrorism. Write everything in a language that nobody elsewhere in the world understands. Now, are they looking for volunteers to guard these new codetalkers and perhaps kill them if necessary to prevent them falling into enemy hands?

  86. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    COBOL coders are almost all over 55 and many are over 60!

    45? my son is 47!

    Kids ;-).

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  87. Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    You are also a lying sack of shit "Anonymous Coward", In Tech it works like this!

    At 40 you only get contracts (and a rare perm hire)
    At 50 you will only get short term emergency contracts (rarely/if ever)
    At 60 while they can't laugh in your face, you shouldn't bother

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  88. Break at any time... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    From my experience the problem isn't with the program (other than the fact that it can't integrate with anything, without a COBOL pro of course), but with the fact that many of these programs are still running on their original hardware, which is usually beyond even what we would consider obsolete. Many of these systems are the "don't f-ing touch it" or even look at it too hard as everyone that knew exactly what it does, did, or continues to do are long gone. Put it in a locked closet or room, and throw away the key.

    But eventually something on them just break, then systems go down, and related systems, etc...

    And then they hire a COBOL guy, and are probably willing to pay decent money at that point.

    Which really has absolutely NOTHING to do with COBOL and everything to do with poor systems management.