US CIO/CTO: Idea of Hiring COBOL Coders Laughable

Pfffffttttttttt by dcollins · 2012-05-26 06:29 · 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

Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Johann+Lau · 2012-05-26 07:43 · 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.
Re:Pfffffttttttttt by hairyfeet · 2012-05-26 08:45 · 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.
Re:Pfffffttttttttt by Ihmhi · 2012-05-26 15:49 · 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."

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:Pfffffttttttttt by jythie · 2012-05-26 16:59 · 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.
Re:Pfffffttttttttt by kmoser · 2012-05-27 08:19 · Score: 3, Funny

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

a**? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 06:31 · Score: 5, Funny

You mean ass. No need for silly regular expressions.

Re:a**? by isopropanol · 2012-05-26 06:44 · Score: 4, Funny

No, not ass, but nothing or any number of a's
Re:a**? by toriver · 2012-05-26 06:55 · Score: 4, Funny

Or maybe a double pointer of (cryptic) type a? These programming languages are weird.
Re:a**? by aynoknman · 2012-05-26 08:51 · Score: 2

Hmm, how would you say that in COBOL?

--
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
Re:a**? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 10:17 · 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.
Re:a**? by jalefkowit · 2012-05-26 11:30 · Score: 2

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

--
Read my blog.
Re:a**? by smellotron · 2012-05-26 15:04 · 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.
Re:a**? by maxwell+demon · 2012-05-27 02:21 · 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.

Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audience by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-05-26 06:31 · 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!

Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-05-26 06:34 · 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.

Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-05-26 06:35 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by Waffle+Iron · 2012-05-26 06:50 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by Sir_Sri · 2012-05-26 06:55 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by phantomfive · 2012-05-26 06:57 · 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."
Re:Good luck with that... by Austerity+Empowers · 2012-05-26 07:05 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-05-26 07:19 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by Ambassador+Kosh · 2012-05-26 07:23 · 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! :)
Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-05-26 07:26 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by Zenin · 2012-05-26 07:44 · 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
Re:Good luck with that... by digitig · 2012-05-26 07:54 · 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?
Re:Good luck with that... by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-05-26 12:58 · 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.
Re:Good luck with that... by TarPitt · 2012-05-27 05:13 · 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

In related news... by Haedrian · 2012-05-26 06:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Park seems to like a**es

I don't want to live on this planet anymore... by Karmashock · 2012-05-26 06:37 · 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.

COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 06:40 · 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.

Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Mabhatter · 2012-05-26 07:00 · 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.
Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by swalve · 2012-05-26 07:03 · 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.
Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by jgrahn · 2012-05-26 07:09 · 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.
Re:COBOL might be an awful, outdated language by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 07:20 · 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.

Bad dudes by Ironchew · 2012-05-26 06:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Are you a bad enough dude to innovate the President?

Experience doesn't count?! by david.emery · 2012-05-26 06:45 · 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?

They didn't laugh at Lewis and Clark by shine · 2012-05-26 06:46 · 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

ass. ASS, I say by Eil · 2012-05-26 06:49 · Score: 2

There, I said it.

Re:ass. ASS, I say by FiloEleven · 2012-05-26 08:36 · Score: 2

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

--
Your brain is not a computer.

Oh crap. by icebraining · 2012-05-26 06:54 · Score: 2

The US CIO/CTO is a brogrammer.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

COBOL is secure by GeneralTurgidson · 2012-05-26 07:02 · 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.

Re:I agree with this sentiment by DurendalMac · 2012-05-26 07:06 · Score: 2

You left out "And get off my lawn!"

Wrong priorities! by bradley13 · 2012-05-26 07:07 · 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.

Re:Wrong priorities! by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-05-26 07:46 · 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.
Re:Wrong priorities! by Digicaf · 2012-05-26 08:56 · 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.
Re:Wrong priorities! by iter8 · 2012-05-27 01:40 · 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.
Re:Wrong priorities! by cyber-vandal · 2012-05-27 10:21 · 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.

Re:I agree with this sentiment by Surt · 2012-05-26 07:35 · 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

Dilbert by Aggrajag · 2012-05-26 07:35 · 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/

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Paracelcus · 2012-05-26 08:14 · 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

Re:So long as it's PDP-8 or 9989 by EETech1 · 2012-05-26 08:51 · 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

If it ain't broke... by hawguy · 2012-05-26 09:11 · 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".

Re:I've seen it all. by hawguy · 2012-05-26 09:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wish I had COBOL for Linux

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

Re:I agree with this sentiment by gbjbaanb · 2012-05-26 10:00 · 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?

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 10:02 · 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.

Joke all you like by excelsior_gr · 2012-05-26 10:11 · 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...

That's... Cool... heh heh... heh heh! by theshowmecanuck · 2012-05-26 11:15 · 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.

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-26 12:09 · 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.

Re:I agree with this sentiment by ralphdaugherty · 2012-05-26 12:24 · 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.

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by St.Creed · 2012-05-26 21:32 · 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)

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Raenex · 2012-05-27 00:28 · 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?

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Raenex · 2012-05-27 00:30 · Score: 2

Thanks.

You're welcome?

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by maxwell+demon · 2012-05-27 02:23 · 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.

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by wcgOtt · 2012-05-27 06:26 · 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.

Re:Of course they are not in the TechCrunch audien by Meski · 2012-05-27 13:52 · 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++

Slashdot Mirror

US CIO/CTO: Idea of Hiring COBOL Coders Laughable

66 of 265 comments (clear)