Rubbish IT Systems Cost the US At Least $40 Billion During Covid (ft.com) 99
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Financial Times: A lot of critical financial and government infrastructure runs on Cobol. The more-than-60-year-old mainframe coding language is embedded into payments and transaction rails, even though there are very few Cobol-literate coders available to maintain them. The big argument in favor of sticking with Cobol systems is that they work. The catch is that, whenever they stop working, it is difficult to figure out why. That's not good in a crisis, which is exactly when they're most likely to break. Covid-19 put a lot of strain the US state benefit systems.
The ones that used Cobol for processing unemployment claims failed spectacularly, according to a new working paper from The Atlanta Fed: "States that used an antiquated [unemployment insurance]-benefit system experienced a 2.8 percentage point decline in total credit and debit card consumption relative to card consumption in states with more modern UI benefit systems. [...] Using this estimate in a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I find that the lack of investment in updating UI-benefit systems in COBOL states was associated with a reduction in real GDP of at least $40 billion (in 2019 dollars) lower during this [March 13 2020 to year-end] period
The paper uses Cobol as a proxy for old and inefficient IT, not the direct cause of failure. Claimants faced much longer delays in the 28 states that still used Cobol in 2020, both because of the unprecedented volume of claims and the difficulty updating systems with new eligibility rules, author Michael Navarrete finds. [...] As an aside, one oddity of the data is that Republican-controlled states were more likely to have replaced old IT systems, even though their standard unemployment insurance payments are lower on average. Why? Absolutely no idea, but here are the maps. And, once adjusted for state politics, here's the key finding.
The ones that used Cobol for processing unemployment claims failed spectacularly, according to a new working paper from The Atlanta Fed: "States that used an antiquated [unemployment insurance]-benefit system experienced a 2.8 percentage point decline in total credit and debit card consumption relative to card consumption in states with more modern UI benefit systems. [...] Using this estimate in a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I find that the lack of investment in updating UI-benefit systems in COBOL states was associated with a reduction in real GDP of at least $40 billion (in 2019 dollars) lower during this [March 13 2020 to year-end] period
The paper uses Cobol as a proxy for old and inefficient IT, not the direct cause of failure. Claimants faced much longer delays in the 28 states that still used Cobol in 2020, both because of the unprecedented volume of claims and the difficulty updating systems with new eligibility rules, author Michael Navarrete finds. [...] As an aside, one oddity of the data is that Republican-controlled states were more likely to have replaced old IT systems, even though their standard unemployment insurance payments are lower on average. Why? Absolutely no idea, but here are the maps. And, once adjusted for state politics, here's the key finding.
Like debugging Java or C# is any easier (Score:2)
This isn't a case were they can just jump frameworks every couple of years to whatever is trendy...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It will be easier.
Rust and C# are easier to debug than Java. Not sure about Javascript but all 4 are easier to debug than Cobol...
Re: (Score:2)
Rust and C# are easier to debug than Java.
I find Java MUCH easier to debug than either Rust or C#. Java has outstanding development tools, while C# has Visual Studio, which is decidedly NOT an outstanding development tool (it's barely a development tool at all, in my opinion). But I'm also highly proficient with Java, while I'm barely literate with either C# or Rust.
That aside, most languages are far easier to debug than COBOL. But again, I'm barely literate in COBOL. I see a pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. And yes, I *did* write COBOL. (And PL/1, and C, and...)
Re:Like debugging Java or C# is any easier (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Definitely. Without a doubt.
The problem with these old COBOL systems is that they have decades of patches one on top of another, and very little formal testing. These systems were made in a time long before "modern good practices" were established. They work because the business requirements are straightforward and change very little. And the things they do are relatively simple. The barrier to entry is extremely high. COBOL is not taught anymore, and even if you learn COBOL on your own in Linux, in real life it won't be a Linux OS. It'll probably be several layers of proprietary IBM VM emulation, with Linux running AS/400 running AIX. And on top of that, you have whatever customizations this particular user made. You're a slave of what someone that wasn't necessarily a "wizard" decided 40 years ago.
With a more "modern" language, COBOL can make use of modern "good practices", especially automated testing and such.
the "jump frameworks every couple of years to whatever is trendy" is out of place when you are mentioning Java and C#. Both are well-established languages and have been stable for literally decades now. Java and C# (actually .NET) people are not in the same game as JS developers.
The problem isn't the language, but all of the things that come around it. Using a modern language would, if anything, let you ditch the expensive IBM support contracts for mainframe hardware (and maybe switch to slightly less expensive support contracts for regular hardware)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Mainframes have come a long ways [youtu.be] from the 360, and can have a reliability regular hardware doesn't.
Re:Like debugging Java or C# is any easier (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with these old COBOL systems is that they have decades of patches one on top of another, and very little formal testing
That's true of modern systems too. Good practices should include highly modularized interconnected systems. A ground-up rewrite is impossible for monolithic software that's been around very long. That's why you need small enough pieces that you can actually take them on.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. But that would be good engineering. Modern enterprises do not do good engineering in the IT space. It is expensive and requires competent and experienced people. You cannot get-rich-quick that way and that is all that counts in today's greed-dominated IT industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Giant engineering, banking and insurance firms keep outsourcing their IT to IBM branded outsourcers in India, and wonder why nothing gets fixed. Kick the can down the road in perpetuity.
Start inhousing IT again and you wills start seeing legacy systems swapped out because it would be cheaper to replace a 60 year old stack of VM's with new bare metal systems that don't rely on SAAS bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the '90s my instructor for BASIC programming told us, "If you learn COBOL next you'll never lack for a job for the rest of your life."
I studied RPG instead. Oh, well.
Re: (Score:2)
My brother has been programming in, for pay, RPG continuously since 1976. He also works with Java, JavaScript, CL, the C universe, and Rust, plus most of the IBM universe needed to work with S/3x, AS/400, and Z series. Yes, he's a stud. He studied PDP/11 and VAX as he studied S/32, RPG, CL, and excelled in them.
He does stuff I can't pronounce. So it pleases me when he calls about the blinking lights on his home router.
You can find work in RPG, though it's mostly grunt work now.
Re: (Score:3)
These systems were made in a time long before "modern good practices" were established.
So-called "modern good practices" are why modern software is such a mess. I'll take ancient COBOL over some .NET monstrosity any day of the week. Your "modern good practices" are the reason why kids think 5 years is a long time for a project to be in production. That ancient COBOL is ancient not because it's too expensive to replace, but because it works and works better than any proposed alternative. It will likely still be in production long after your "modern" .NET mess is distant memory and your "g
Re: (Score:2)
Learning COBOL is relatively easy (although there are some dialect differences between say, gnuCobol and the COBOL used on IBM mainframes). Learning Z/OS and JCL on the other hand...
There are resources, though... for example the Open Mainframe Project:
https://openmainframeproject.o... [openmainframeproject.org]
As they say, if you want a job for the rest of your life, learn to work on mainframes...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming people aren't constantly adding shit to your Java, Rust, or C# apps.
Nice thing about Cobol is that people don't like to monkey with it unless they have to. It makes for very long-lived code bases that resist feature creep somewhat better than so-called modern languages.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget the Cowbell++. It's like Rust and Java, except that it won't corrode your car, or spill your beans. It's a safe, secure language, backward and forward compatible with Rock, Hard Rock, 70's Rock, and even Rock'n'Roll.
When writing in Cowbell++, there's no possible problem that can't be solved by adding more. It's really the ideal of the fictional programming languages.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not.
Look right in front of you. Chrome. Firefox.
Figuring out why something doesn't work in Chrome or Firefox. Why doesn't it work can be any number of reasons from local incorrect permissions to single character typos, to case sensitivity to mixtures of DOM0 and DOM1 .
Assembly, Cobol, C, Fortran, Fourth, are perfectly fine things to program stuff that needs to be reliable well past it's hardware life. That's why "no C++ shit in the Linux Kernel" was the obvious right choice for Linux OS's.
The rea
Why? (Score:2)
Becauuuse... Why?
Is Cobol specifically more difficult to debug?
Is there really a deficit in Cobol literate programmers?
Isn't Cobol actually spelled COBOL?
I don't buy the implicit implication that because it's old it's not as good as new, for certain new would be worse given the AI riddled times we vibe in.
Is the real reason it's "difficult to figure out why" because
Re: (Score:3)
I took COBOL in college and it wasn't rocket science. It is quite a bit different than today's languages, but any programmer worth their salary should be able to figure it out relatively easily.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that "programmers worth their salary" (and it would need to be a higher one here) are very, very rare these days.
Re: (Score:2)
I also took a course in COBOL way back when. It was the wordiest damn thing I ever encountered. An RPG course was also offered but only because the local amusement park (Cedar Point) relied on it heavily for coaster functions back then, or so I was told.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I figured the self documenting part but the inclusion of bean counter readability is quite funny that I knew nothing about. Thanks :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Cobol specifically more difficult to debug?
Yes. Much Cobol code was written before structured programming was standard. There are no unit tests. There are no classes to encapsulate complexity.
Is there really a deficit in Cobol literate programmers?
No, not really. A programmer can learn Cobol well enough to get work done in about a week. The problem isn't "learning the language", but learning about the legacy application you need to maintain. For instance, why is a discount applied to every invoice for customer #478324? Well, because he was the CEO's college roommate, but you won't learn that from the manual.
Isn't Cobol actually spelled COBOL?
Only if you want to be pedantic.
I don't buy the implicit implication that because it's old it's not as good as new
There's been a lot of progress in programming languages in the last 60 years.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it ...
It is broke.
Re: (Score:2)
It is broke.
So it does not work? It is impossible to fix? Explain, because that is what broke is - not even being pedantic.
Re: (Score:2)
If problems occur, it's hard to follow the logic since modern systems try to encapsulate business logic in different classes than message passing and database validation.
If you want to add functionality, you have too many options (all with unknown side effects), rather than one class with defined sided effects.
If you need to change one specific rule, you don't have the unit tests to (hopefully) prove that you didn't break ten things while fixing two.
So it is perfectly stable as long as the underlying system
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot that so much of the original COBOL code was written before I wrote my first COBOL programs, circa 1980. The shop that I started in had a whole coding style guide, and code reviews, Military, so obviously, these guys were into standardization and really drummed in structured methods... but that's quite true that the systems that predate that era had a rather ad hoc approach, often creating strong dependencies between the data and the logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, very nice. I'm surprised (but happily so) that anyone was that structured in the 80s, though if anyone was, the military seems likely. But anyone that structured probably already replaced most/all of their COBOL with something newer, so the remaining COBOL systems are the OTHER sort...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you're scaring me.
Yeah, I guess that was before my time. Thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 90s I inherited a make/awk monstrosity where top-level make created a top-level awk script, which ran and created Makefiles in each subdirectory and ran make in each one, which generated awk scripts in each directory, which then ran each awk script, and each result was gathered by the top awk script.. I dealt with it for a year until it was fully in my control, when I quickly replaced it with a single perl script which mere humans could understand. (Generating DNS files for named, if anyone cares,
Re: (Score:2)
If problems occur, it's hard to follow the logic since modern systems try to encapsulate business logic in different classes than message passing and database validation.
Reminds me of Packet Radio - think of it as a very early RF email system. Programmed via terminal or terminal emulator now, to a packet node controller. When I had to learn it around 5 years ago, it was pretty frustrating. another terminal based language to learn State of the art from decades ago. It wasn't exactly complicated, but the commands weren't even consistent with themselves.
If you made a mistake, it immediately responded with "EH?", and the various command parameters were almost a guessing ga
Re: (Score:2)
COBOL is easy.
Easy to learn
Easy to program with
Easy to read.
It is very simple. Which is both a strength and its biggest weakness.
The problem is that programs written are NOT structured except the way the guy who wrote the code thought it should be ... if he even thought about it at all.
I was once upon a time hired to convert a COBOL programmed system into an SQL database. The example I use is there was this one proceedure done in COBOL ( take data, modify it this way, output accordingly), literally the same
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, most migrations fail. They are expensive, can take years, and are really hard to get right. I doubt that COBOL was the problem, honestly, given how predictable the language is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy the implicit implication that because it's old it's not as good as new
There's been a lot of progress in programming languages in the last 60 years.
To be fair, the problem isn't simply because the language is old.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, don't make me read the article, but from the summary, it ain't broke.... and it don't break if you don't touch it.
It's seriously sounds more like feeding time at the consultancies.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been a lot of progress in programming languages in the last 60 years.
Given the state of software these days, I'd say that's debatable.
It is broke.
Oh? What's wrong with it? Too structured? Too efficient? Too easy to read? Too predictable?
Sure, OO COBOL was a mistake, but that's what happens when morons try to "improve" something they don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
// Isn't Cobol actually spelled COBOL? // Only if you want to be pedantic.
Actually COBOL is an acronym. Acronyms are almost always fully capitalized. Even Wikipedia upholds this tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I say "almost always" because there have been some acronyms that have been 'anachronized' and have become common nouns like "radar"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's because you were figuring things out and making terrible decisions 50 years ago. None of you really knew what you were doing. You just called IBM support and had them do things for you, or did what the manual said.
The fact that systems can't be upgraded and have to run in layer after layer of emulation is proof that you did a poor job building a maintainable system. You never changed the program to run on a new system. You always had IBM to save you from doing it by having companies pay them more a
Re: (Score:2)
Note that we don't assume we know what we are doing nowadays either. But the intelligent among us know that we are idiots, so we add structure and unit tests such that in 50 years, those new young idiots will have some breadcrumb trails and unit tests to make their life less terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy the implicit implication that because it's old it's not as good as new, for certain new would be worse given the AI riddled times we vibe in.
I agree, it ain't broke, so it don't need "fixed".
Maybe teach COBOL again? Talk about a job with gainful opportunities. In similar fashion, while I'm not a COBOL programmer, I've come back from retirement because after all, everyone simply knows analog and radio is dead so get into digital, it's the only thing we'll use in the brave new world of the future. So well versed electromagnetic people became kinda rare.
Turns out if you have a solid electromagnetic background and understand digital you name y
Re: (Score:2)
are you in canada? ontario? for some reason I got the impression you're a Canuck.
backstory: I've got a nice Tascam reel to reel deck, transport is fine, very low mileage, but the heads are giving me grief, misalignment likely, the finer details are a bit beyond my current abilities, and the closest technician is likely Toronto, who knows how much to ship a 40 kilogram box.... I have the exact problem you're talking about. No one in my metropolis
Re: (Score:2)
heyyyy.... do you know anything about reel to reel tape heads? are you in canada? ontario? for some reason I got the impression you're a Canuck.
I'm in the middle of Pensylvania. Some call us Yinzers here.
backstory: I've got a nice Tascam reel to reel deck, transport is fine, very low mileage, but the heads are giving me grief, misalignment likely, the finer details are a bit beyond my current abilities, and the closest technician is likely Toronto, who knows how much to ship a 40 kilogram box.... I have the exact problem you're talking about. No one in my metropolis of 1 Million + will touch analog equipment, the last guy who did retired with a backlog of years ... probably... there is one guy locally who will touch a high end power amp I have and he's got a six month backlog. <sigh>
Talk to me.
Oh, crap! About a year ago, we got rid of one. It probably would have had everything you need or even been in better condition. We were running low on space and the boss picked it for disposal. Frustrating, it would have been great to find it a good home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why? (Score:2)
But imagine if SAP or Oracle could get their hooks into an update path and drag out the conversion for 100 times the original cost and years and years of additional headaches.
In actuality if nobody wants to program in COBALT it would be prime for AI bots to maintain it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's their business models. Period. Bid low, explain how it cannot be done the way you wanted it to be, quote the real bid halfway through.
Just since covid? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was always the case. The problem is lack of liability and lack of regulation. Hence the whole business of writing software is a persistent race to the bottom and solid engineering does not even enter the picture. Try building a bridge the way "modern" software gets written and you will end up in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Try building a bridge the way "modern" software gets written and you will end up in prison.
Do bridge builders have multiple layers of bosses and clients with conflicting agendas insisting that the bridge design get changed every few days? But those changes have to get integrated into the part of the bridge already built? And they can't start over when the design requirements become incompatible with the original build objectives around which part of the bridge has already been constructed? Are bridge builders mandated to finish building after their budget has been cut part way through constructio
Re: (Score:2)
Bla, bla, bla. You are just trying to confuse the issue. How pathetic.
What bridge builders have is regulation, liability and engineering standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Try building a bridge the way "modern" software gets written and you will end up in prison.
Don't be silly. You wouldn't even survive the attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not financially viable to write good software.
it's not financially viable (and probably logically impossible) to write fantastic software. But coding theory has advanced enough that "well designed code" is not much more expensive than "fuck it, we'll ship it and pray" and it's far cheaper if you assume the company will still exist in five years.
$40 billion? (Score:1)
Why does that number sound familiar? Oh right, that's the amount of U.S. taxpayer money dear leader is handing over to a country whose leader ran the country into the ground and will now use that money to prop up his campaign for re-election.
In other words, in one fell swoop, the U.S. will lose another $40 billion in a matter of weeks compared to the first few years of covid.
Talk about efficiency!
Re: (Score:2)
It gets better. The soy bean farmers have lost their markets in China due to la Presidenta. China decided to buy from Brazil and Argentina because of the new tariffs from la Presidenta. Milei of Argentina took the initial $20 Billion (with $20 Billion more promised) and gave a hearty thank you to la Presidenta, and then turned around and cut Argentina's export tariff on soy beans. Chine gave a hearty thank you to Milei for this. Now, la Presidenta is promising to bail out the soy bean farmers in America due
In my experience... (Score:3, Insightful)
I worked for a state govt for the better part of 15 years or so and had a lot of exposure to a variety of the ins and outs of how govt works with respect to IT systems, especially the older mainframe stuff, even though my team worked with more modern stuff.
Based on that experience....there is just no way a typical state govt is going to spend anywhere near the money required to replace a "perfectly functioning" system, no matter how old it is, no matter how much sense it makes, simply to "head off at the pass" looming problems that are on the horizon. Good luck with that!
These decisions are made by political appointees who all have their own agendas as to what they want to accomplish with their limited time in office. The technical people, who actually know shit, are shackled by those political processes and the train wrecks that result.
You also have to factor in the "empire building" that goes on, even amongst the tech staff. The mainframe people have absolutely zero interest in doing anything that diminishes their power, prevalence, or function within the agencies they serve. They'd rather spend $10 on their own shit than $1 on someone else's shit, even though someone else's shit is clearly the better option.
The amount of money that I saw completely pissed away, as a result of pissing matches between "competing" divisions of the same govt agency was just unbelievable. One stupid decision after another, all because of various dick measuring contests that went on. Sometimes money would get pissed away as a result of Party A just wanting to stick it to Party B, even when part A achieved no clear benefit from doing so.
Summary: nothing surprising in the summary. That's just how how agencies work....or don't, as the case may be. It's amazing to me that they get anything accomplished at all.
Pournelle's Iron Rule of Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it fits here:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Taken from: https://www.jerrypournelle.com... [jerrypournelle.com]
I don't think that's an iron law (Score:2)
That theory is basically just a round about way to say we shouldn't have government. It's literally saying that every organization, and every organization is some form of government, is bad and will always be bad.
What I have noticed about people who despise every kind of organization is a falling to a few groups. You have the true believing libertarians/anarchis
Re: (Score:2)
With that theory ignores is the third group who is actively trying to take control of the organization to twist it to their personal benefit.
That's what the second group is. The first group is trying to do work. The second group is trying to amass power for personal benefit.
There's a corollary argument he would later make that as an organization grows, the second group will outnumber the first group. It's not a polemic against government. It's a warning against any organization getting too large.
Re: (Score:1)
In my experience, that just doesn't hold true.
Wait... (Score:3)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything increases GDP. Increase in the number of car accidents? GDP increases. Companies suing each other over stupid bullshit? GDP increases. Recovering from massive weather events that just destroyed half your city? GDP increases. Cleaning up that oil spill? GDP increases.
All those circular investments by "AI" companies? GDP increases.
It's a bullshit number/concept.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Two economists were walking down the street when they saw dog poop on the sidewalk.
The first economist said to the second, "I'll pay you $100 to eat a spoonful of that dog poop."
The second economist figured it was an easy $100, so ate a spoonful of poop. Then he said to the first, "I'll pay you $100 to eat a spoonful."
The first economist ate a spoonful and collected his $100.
As they walked further down the street, the second economist said to the first, "We both ate dog poop for nothing."
The first economist replied, "Not true. We just added $200 to the GDP."
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be stupid. Moving money is what makes an economy. That's why GDP is a useful metric.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and Healthcare is 20% of GDP.
According to Keynesian economists, if we were all much healthier the economy would be worse off.
I'm not sure how much more evidence you need that the entire economic school is a bunch of self-styled money-priests making excuses for government spending.
Keynes did some really good early work but then he got caught diddling kids and after that the King's spending was all the best thing anybody could do.
An early version of "trust the experts".
Re: (Score:2)
According to Keynesian economists, if we were all much healthier the economy would be worse off.
0/10 -- low effort troll.
At least try to make something sound plausible to someone outside your right-wing ignorance bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the Left still clings to discredited philosophies, I'm waiting for your point...
Re: (Score:2)
Such as?
Don't bother replying. We already know you're full of shit.
Re: Wait... (Score:2)
Plain old socialism doesn't seem to work too badly, but it fails so often when the leaders turn it into communism, and most do. Scandinavian countries are doing a pretty good job. Job. But that's not really the left, is it? The fos comments are just ad hominem attacks again, aren't they? Of course some people are full of it, but I have history on my side. And don't forget, it was the Nazis who defunded the police so that they could do what they wanted to do. More left. Naziism is not right Wing no matter ho
Re: (Score:2)
See? We knew you were completely full of shit.
Here's a clue for you: If you can't support your bullshit claims, don't make them in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Keynesian economists, if we were all much healthier the economy would be worse off.
0/10 -- low effort troll.
At least try to make something sound plausible to someone outside your right-wing ignorance bubble.
It's not quite 20%: NHE grew 7.5% to $4.9 trillion in 2023, or $14,570 per person, and accounted for 17.6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [cms.gov]
So if we were healthier a large chunk of that money wouldn't be getting spent on healthcare hence lower GDP so his statement on the face of it is correct. But he's also wrong because they'd damn sure find a way to spend it on something else which would in turn increase GDP albeit in a different area of the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're giving him far, far, too much credit:
Poor heath reduces GDP more than healthcare spending offsets. "Making prudent investments in global health will not only dramatically improve people’s quality of life, it’s a $12 trillion economic opportunity, according to new research" [hbr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Money gets moved around a lot. The more it moves, the more people benefit from it. Every dollar spent becomes someone else's paycheck, someone else's income tax, etc. It's true that if you look at the number and try to move that needle independently, you wreck the meaning of the numbers. They are only symbolic numbers. But they represent something real.
Re: (Score:2)
We count tax dollars spent through entitlement programs as GDP?
Government spending is one of the key components that goes into the usual formula for GDP [wikipedia.org].
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
The "G" is government spending (federal, state, and local). In some countries, government spending is counted in the I (investment) term. But there needs to be some way to account for the dollars taken out of an economy as taxes (and borrowing) then re-spent as salaries, aircraft carriers, office spaces, schools, hospital services, etc.
It's not the only way to calculate GDP - there are
It matters less and less (Score:3)
The ones that used Cobol for processing unemployment claims failed spectacularly ...
Any payments from the US government to individual citizens - such as unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, tax refunds, etc. - are well on their way to being a tiny fraction of what they were in previous administrations. And somehow I doubt that bailouts to oligarchs, and to countries such as Israel and Argentina, will be affected by legacy COBOL systems.
OTOH, a shortage of brown paper bags might put a serious crimp in the current administration's style.
Maintenance (Score:2)
> Why? Absolutely no idea
This isn't surprising to anybody who's studied the psychology of political science.
Those who identify as 'conservative' value maintenance much higher than those who identify as 'progressive'. You're more likely to see them in their driveway changing their oil and measuring their tire tread depth. It's just different kinds of people with different time-preference mindsets.
Note that with a limited budget maintenance spending is money that cannot be spent on immediate benefits.
You
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who identify as 'conservative' value maintenance much higher than those who identify as 'progressive'. You're more likely to see them in their driveway changing their oil and measuring their tire tread depth.
Have any evidence for that? No? I didn't think so.
Careful what you wish for (Score:2)
Have you seen the horror stories about the "upgrades" to government systems, I'm thinking this one [slashdot.org] as recent example ?
The specs seem to be written by Steven King or the Brothers Grimm. If I were in charge of updating systems I'd take these as cautionary tales and maybe cling onto my old, working, system and add new functionality around the edges in a more modern way
Rubbish Report from Atlanta Fed (Score:5, Interesting)
This is completely incorrect. It was not the COBOL systems that failed, it was the "modern" front ends to them that failed.
COBOL ain't the problem (Score:2)
fraud (Score:2)
Any chance that 2.8% 'consumption' difference is due to fraud built-into modern non-COBOL software? I mean, a time existed when thieving would embarrass
Covid? (Score:2)
" The big argument in favor of sticking with Cobol systems is that they work. The catch is that, whenever they stop working, it is difficult to figure out why. That's not good in a crisis, which is exactly when they're most likely to break."
There's a crisis as soon as the old dude maintaining the code dies, from Covid or run over by a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the remaining old dude (or dudette) is maintaining the code at this point. They could just be serving the role of whacking people with sticks to keep them from accidentally pulling on the thread that is keeping the whole system working, and making loud noises if some new boneheaded manager tries to kill the system without realizing that doing so would cripple the entire company.
Being the last person who understands what all the components are supposed to do and why they are important is not
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I remember a company that had a mini-computer sitting in a broom cabinet, nobody knew what it did, so the new manager pulled the plug and found out it ran the company.
Nobody knew how to restart it.
I ran as soon as they told me.
AI makes this problem moot (Score:2)
a good general software engineer with an agentic-ish AI IDE like Cursor, will have no problem fixing cobol. I don't know php, or wordpress, or SQL, or how to mitigate a ddos, or how to write an MCP plugin for Qt Creator, or how so use cloudflare to do the five separate things i need it to do, or any of the other DOZEN things that i accomplished last week, but with claude and several "make sure it passes the pinning and unit tests" prompts, I got it all working.
So learn COBOL (Score:3)
"...even though there are very few Cobol-literate coders available to maintain them."
I had a programming opportunity that involved programming in RPG on an IBM platform. I had zero experience with the language or platform, but wanted the job, so I did a very deep dive into all things RPG and IBM, nailed the interview, got hired, and have been modifying and developing new programs for short of two years. It was a wonderful change from 35+ years as an IT generalist, and I haven't looked back.
Re: (Score:2)
"...even though there are very few Cobol-literate coders available to maintain them."
I had a programming opportunity that involved programming in RPG on an IBM platform. I had zero experience with the language or platform, but wanted the job, so I did a very deep dive into all things RPG and IBM, nailed the interview, got hired, and have been modifying and developing new programs for short of two years. It was a wonderful change from 35+ years as an IT generalist, and I haven't looked back.
This.
Cobol is not a complicated language. It does fewer things than your fancy modern language.
It looks complicated because it's verbose.
If you can learn C, you can learn Cobol.
It's never come up that I've had to use Cobol in a job, but if it did, I don't perceive a problem learning it if that's what was needed. We covered it in language theory in my computer science degree 35 years ago and there was so little there compared to the other languages we studied (Eiffel, Standard ML, Erlang, C, Pascal, Prolog,
Despair.com : Consulting (Score:2)
Cobol (Score:2)
A mainframe system that has survived multiple waves of "this is the new thing" has one of two things going for it:
1. It works fine and isn't broken, and handles way more thoughput than any alternative proposed without having to spend a stupid amount of money.
2. Nobody understands how the code and logic work, and nobody wants to touch it for fear of breaking it, and all the prior migration projects failed miserably, so much so that there's no money or will to try again. So even if they want to change how
Dollar Pisser 5000 (Score:2)
States that used an antiquated [unemployment insurance]-benefit system experienced a 2.8 percentage point decline in total credit and debit card consumption relative to card consumption in states with more modern UI benefit systems.
Translation: In the United States of Capitalism, Land if the FreeGDP, if you’re welfare benefits system isn’t maximizing the money burn rate to ensure every penny provided is spent (with additional credit debt, plus interest), then YOUR particular Dollar Pisser 5000 sucks ass and has “cost” Greed N. Corruption eleventy-bazillion dollars, which of COURSE isn’t a number pulled from an asshole to be abused even years later for tax deducting/avoidance reasons.
(We remember 1999. Al
Re: (Score:1)
States that used an antiquated [unemployment insurance]-benefit system experienced a 2.8 percentage point decline in total credit and debit card consumption relative to card consumption in states with more modern UI benefit systems.
Seeing I thought about that yesterday. When I a