[Allegrippus]

I'm aware of several prominent companies in the Pittsburgh region that were on centralized mainframes and now use Micro Focus or some other "modern" COBOL for their core systems. These aren't legacy but are actively developed and extended. To look at the screens, etc., you'd likely never guess that the underlying code is COBOL. If it does the job and serves the business well, why switch?

[shmerl]

> If it does the job and serves the business well, why switch?

That's of course understandable (for keeping legacy systems), but new systems deployed with using Cobol is not so expected.

[kjs3]

We established that your limited experience in the business hasn't exposed you to a lot of what is going on outside of what is reported in HN. Why do you insist in on flaunting that fact?

[shmerl]

The reasons for using COBOL in any new project weren't explained, so whatever was "established" is irrelevant to the discussion.