Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:19:45 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <1114392917.749421134.280786.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
 <5mqdnZuGq4lgwm_7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vcub5c$36h63$1@dont-email.me>
 <36KdnVlGJu9VLW77nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <971448126.749088380.092448.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
 <vd5195$edas$1@dont-email.me>
 <59CJO.19674$MoU3.15170@fx36.iad>
 <vd6vto$r0so$1@dont-email.me>
 <iJEJO.198176$kxD8.81657@fx11.iad>
 <3hOdnWpQ649QMGr7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vd8doi$15q07$1@dont-email.me>
 <vd8eg7$15v1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <cxicnVzg_cn_eGX7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vdapbn$1kp35$5@dont-email.me>
 <xD2dnSerYr-8kmf7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <llv25bFa6uvU2@mid.individual.net>
 <n-ednbNVDrThwWf7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 23:19:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3a721c7ebb47ce1144e932a9b0bdb2de";
	logging-data="2520151"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EinlEhDOwtOUyIwcdwF7j"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AfeUcfhLgVzE48i/XjhsouM5NYc=
	sha1:JhEW5vCuTQmUkTrIhixCIe0m29Q=
Bytes: 3069

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> On 9/30/24 3:26 AM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:38:25 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> 
>>> Have NO idea what PayPal/EBay/etc use. If they're smart they'll kinda
>>> HIDE that. Whatever it is, it's probably translated into 'C' at some
>>> point to build the final executables.
>> 
>> Assuming PayPal etc lasts 30 years do you think they will have at some
>> point rewritten their entire codebase in the flavor of the day or will
>> UseNet in 2054 be talking about the ugly, obsolete patched up mess?
> 
>   The ugly patched MESS  :-)
> 
>   BET on it !
> 
>   Rewriting large code-bases ... TOO time consuming,
>   TOO risky, TOO expensive - so they WON'T. It's like
>   the old COBOL code in recent threads here. Hire a
>   few gurus and PATCH PATCH PATCH.
> 

The problem with trying to rewrite old software, and I’ve done it, is that
the only “specification” is the code itself. You either write a lot of code
that may have been in the old program but never used, or miss a line of
code that doesn’t seem to do anything that causes the whole thing to blow
up if it’s not there. There’s no way you can test enough to guarantee that
the new system is 100% compatible with the old one. I would never recommend
rewriting a working system.

-- 
Pete