[hyperman1]

This article's opinion of COBOL is too positive, even if I agree that COBOL is sometimes treated too harsh.

The failings of COBOL are the failings of slow, bureaucratic entities. It works, but needs constant manual handholding to keep it on the rails. It assumes plenty of butts in seats with plenty of time. It assumes nobody complains if results are a week late and the first version is wrong. It assumes end users will threat it gently, do a lot of interpreting of codes themselves, and can be fired if they look behind the curtain.

These are not unavoidable technical blockers, but every programming language also carries a specific culture within it.

None of this should block unemployment payments, but all of this places COBOL firmly in the sixties to maybe eighties.

[mech422]

I haven't written cobol since late 90s-early 2k...

But my experiences were just the opposite. If you need to write accounting software, COBOL is a pretty painless way to do it. Add in something like automatic copybooks from DDL in file metadata (like the OS/400 supported) and it was great never having to worry about people forgetting to update record layouts.

the result was you could knock out your typical accounting stuff fairly quickly..

[hyperman1]

Lets chalk it up to different corporate cultures then. Copybooks around here have so much redefines that the smallest mistake causes data corruption. Also, theres not a week going by without someone running out of numbers.