| ▲ | UK banks still run software code written more than 60 years ago(computerweekly.com) |
| 20 points by timthorn 8 hours ago | 20 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | Someone 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| For the basic processes, why wouldn’t they? It’s not like adding an amount of money to an account while simultaneously subtracting the same amount from another account has gotten out of vogue or that the algorithms to do so have changed. FTA: “the reason it lasted is because it was very simple and it worked properly and it was high volume, simple transactions,” he added. “The banks are moving away from these systems because the people who understand them are leaving, and no young professionals want to learn languages like Cobol.”” I guess young professionals do not want to write software that is very simple and works properly (/s, but only partially) |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | whatevaa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anybody is free to take that place. The truth is organizations want experienced COBOL programmer, not a new one, and it is basically impossible to get experience in that area. Your toy projects don't count, a mistake could cost billions to a bank. | |
| ▲ | CoastalCoder 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I guess young professionals do not want to write software that is very simple and works properly (/s, but only partially) Maybe it makes sense to look at this through the developers' career-management lense. Specializing in a potentially niche technology such as mainframe COBOL means limited job options as time goes on. With few employers and few employees in that market, small changes could drive salaries much higher or much lower. (I'm speculating.) It would make sense for developers to demand higher salaries to justify that risk, but AFAIK banks have a reputation for low developer pay. | | |
| ▲ | whatevaa an hour ago | parent [-] | | Limited is understatement. Extremely limited, singli digit options. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | scrapheap 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Interestingly that would put some UK banks as running code that was written when the currency was still Pounds, Shillings and Pence. In the past I've heard that some banks put a decimalisation layer on top of their existing business logic, that would translate between the old Pounds, Shillings and Pence currency, and the new decimal currency. I wonder if there are any banks out there which still have Pounds, Shillings and Pence at the heart of the computer systems. |
| |
| ▲ | dfawcus 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | For 10p, 5p and 2.5p quantities, that wouldn't be an issue as following decimalisation, those simply reused the Florin, Shilling and Sixpence coins. Also yielding: 0.5p = 1.2d
1p = 2.4d
2p = 4.8d
3p = 7.2d
4p = 9.6d
I wonder how they handled those values with their mapping layer? Did the add a layer for handling fifths of an old penny?(The 2.5p coins, then eventually also the 0.5p "new pennies" went out of circulation.) |
|
|
| ▲ | flamesofphx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder if any of them have the original source, or could even compile a list of all the "Business Rules" needed to create a new version of their software, with all the need one off. Even then the "It works" mentality might not allow the risk of missing a "One off business rule", if they don't have a copy of there original source anymore... I mean maybe there a still using copies of a compiled program, that they don't know what's fully in it.. </I-Hope_NOt>.. Imagine if the same is true for pharmacy, big chemical manufacturer, then imagine finding a decent cobol programmer now a days to help smooth the conversion.. </TooMuchImaginationHopefully></StuffOfNightmares> |
|
| ▲ | iefbr14 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It found that 50% of banks admitted to relying on software that only one or two staff members, who are at or near retirement age, understand. This is an organizational problem or just plain neglect.
I learned cobol back in the seventies in one day. I used it for 40 years and I never had any problems understanding programs written by others. |
| |
| ▲ | CoastalCoder 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe "COBOL" here is a misleading shorthand for mainframe banking programming? | | |
| ▲ | WJW 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The original quote doesn't say anything about COBOL, or about mainframes for that matter. It speaks about "systems only one or two people understand", which seems normal enough. You can write incomprehensible software in any language if the specs are convoluted enough, and a bank that has existed for over half a century will almost inevitably be a mishmash of poorly integrated systems written over multiple decades. Sometimes at different banks which were subsequently merged with, sometimes by a consultancy which has long since gone bankrupt, sometimes with a compiler that is no longer available. It's a miracle the system works at all. |
| |
| ▲ | netdevphoenix 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I used it for 40 years and I never had any problems understanding programs written by others That's quite exceptional. Have you never worked on legacy code or with below average devs? | | |
| ▲ | iefbr14 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I've been a consultant for a long time and in that role you were hired only to fix old systems that the resident staff refused to maintain, because not sexy. I didn't mind, it paid good money and I have seen a lot of companies from the inside which is also a plus. The dev were not below average, they just weren't interested. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | treesknees 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder if the use of LLMs will extend the lifespan of this software. Instead of hiring a niche programmer, they can now offload the syntax and nuances of COBOL to the AI while being supervised by experienced developers. Granted, perhaps banking isn’t the ideal place to experiment with this type of technology, but it does seem like a promising use case. |
| |
| ▲ | birjokduf 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nothing in high-stakes critical infrastructure is a promising use case for throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks | |
| ▲ | whatevaa an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bad idea. A mistake could cost billions to a bank. | | |
| ▲ | treesknees 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think it’s as bad as you think. What’s the alternative here, rewrite your entire codebase? Spend millions to build up a developer pipeline that won’t leave for working on more modern infrastructure? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | beepboopboop 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Must be good code. |
|
| ▲ | ksec 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I trust battle tested code more than brand new hyped code. |
|
| ▲ | metalman 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| oh no it does not, it runs sixty year old code, beside 50 year old code, alongside 45 year old code,with 40 year old hardware,plugged into 30 year old modem that connects to 17 min old web site |
