[protocode]

I see mostly imaginary. As a back end systems guy for over 20 years, I deal with guys all the time wanting to introduce new tools into the mix that add zero value. There is a reason why *nix tools are still around. There is nothing that Python can do better than awk for grabbing data columns and piping them into some other tool.

There is a reason why COBOL still exists, for example, what with its ability to ensure accuracy out to 38 digits. Nothing else comes close w/o tons of extra crap libraries, questionable code mangling, and TRUST. Banks trust COBOL because it has an almost 60-year history of trust.

When kids get all shiny-eyed over golang or Rust or any other "new" language or tool and think it would be a good fit in the financial arena, I start to get a little nervous.

[acehreli]

You never said "C" but perhaps you think there is "a reason" why C still exists too. The only reason ineffective tools like C exist is because there are people at the other extreme from those kids: Not take any risk but stick with tried and wrong tools.

[coldtea]

Nope, there are tons of other reasons.

Huge pool of programmers. Huge pool of libraries. Tons of existing code that should continue to run. Excellent documentation. Very fast compilers. Debuggers and profilers a plenty. Top notch vendor support. Choices of IDEs. Works great in embedded. Predictable.

The alternatives being what, e.g. Rust, a 5 year old language with a single implementation that still tries to find its place, and brings extra baggage to the table?

>Not take any risk but stick with tried and wrong tools.

Engineers don't take risks. You wouldn't want risks in the people building your bridges and planes, why would you want in your OSes and network infrastructure?

[blub]

Rust, D or Go could be alternatives, but they have limitations in certain domains and types of projects.

C++ doesn't though, and that's why traditional C projects switch. At least in automotive it seems to be the language of choice.

[protocode]

C still has it's place. It's not glamorous, but it works. COBOL has no decent replacements. Yet. Some have tried. Almost all have failed. Old does not mean useless. If it works, then it's not wrong.

[pjmlp]

On UNIX clones and embedded developers that won't take anything else even at point gun.

.NET, Java are good COBOL replacements.

http://www.fujitsu.com/global/products/software/developer-to...

https://www.microfocus.com/products/visual-cobol/

[coldtea]

>.NET, Java are good COBOL replacements.

Not even close.

As for the links, those are still about COBOL the language.

[pjmlp]

I guess you need to inform yourself about migration projects that use those products to bring COBOL codebases to modern platforms, where new features are then written in Java/.NET languages, while the old working code is left as is.

[coldtea]

Nobody argued that new features could be "written in Java/.NET languages".

Not even that COBOL codebases could be bridged and work "left as is" alongside those.

The main objection was with the word "good".