[the_af]

Believe me: writing Java is on average more interesting than COBOL (I've done both, including some terrible Java systems using Enterprise Java Beans -- I still shudder at the thought -- and Java still wins). Then again, Java has been called "the next COBOL", so that's an interesting comparison.

> Even if you're passionate about something, job stability and good pay are going to be the primary drivers in decisions about jobs.

For a lot of people, yes. Not for all. And even then, it's hard to argue that COBOL is cool or interesting. It's just paying the bills, but nothing to get hyped or write gushing articles about. And there are more interesting programming jobs that will also pay the bills, anyway.

[arabelladonna]

> And there are more interesting programming jobs that will also pay the bills, anyway.

Unless there aren't.

Either way, you're judging people simply for taking a different path than you, which is completely unfair.

[the_af]

If there aren't, there aren't. In that case, there's no choice to be made.

I didn't mean to judge people and in fact tried not to, though perhaps clumsily. I said it's fair to not be passionate about the job. Often I haven't felt passionate about it either, or even particularly motivated. And do note I have worked in COBOL, so I understand the need. I just don't like the language and I don't want to see people selling the idea that it's "interesting" or a particularly sound business decision to learn it -- like those articles that occasionally get posted to HN.

[arabelladonna]

> I said it's fair to not be passionate about the job.

That's not what you said, though. This is what you said:

> If that's what you aspire to, and aren't passionate about software

Those are completely different sentiments and your original "aren't passionate about software" statement is the statement I took issue with.