[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".

[pjmlp]

Except you have your definition of "good" and I have mine.

This statement is meaningless without additional information.

> COBOL has no decent replacements.