Do you know why banks are still running COBOL on new, old architecture, IBM mainframes? Sure, it’s in part due to risk aversion, ignorance and inertia. But it’s also because, if in the end the result is the same, then the tech stack doesn’t matter.
Very few people are tech fanatics, most people want results. They care when the products don’t work. They don’t care how you fix it as long as you fix it in a reasonable manner, within an acceptable timeframe at an affordable price.
Doesn’t matter if the customer is a billion dollars bank or a social network. Debbie thinks javascript is when the barista puts her initials on her latte and rust is something to fear when it shows up under her car. Too many devs forget this.
Do you know why banks are still running COBOL on new, old architecture, IBM mainframes? Sure, it’s in part due to risk aversion, ignorance and inertia. But it’s also because, if in the end the result is the same, then the tech stack doesn’t matter.
I’ve done extensive consulting for financial firms, including mainframe-replacement projects, and that’s not the reason. There are two reasons: banks regard IT as a cost center, so they systematically underinvest. They never budget for lifecyle maintenance, they just kick the can down the road as far as they can. In addition to that, hardly anyone who wrote that COBOL code is still alive, and when it was written in the 1970s or 80s, the requirements and design were seldom documented, and after decades of code maintenance, they’re no longer accurate anyway. So to replace that COBOL, you have to reverse-engineer the whole business process and the app that embodies it. And you can’t do like-for-like replacement, since a lot of the business process is actually workarounds for the limitations of that legacy system. And it’s even worse than that: sometimes that COBOL has some custom IBM 360 assembler behind it, and nobody remembers what that shit does either, and finding people who know that, or CICS, or the quirks of ancient DB/2 versions, is even harder than finding someone skillful who can write COBOL. So until there are new requirements, usually new regulations that cannot be weaseled out of, they let that sleeping dog lie.
In contrast, banks all universally moved to single page apps lately, and every one of them sucks. Some suck more (we don’t support you having more than one tab open while you are researching stocks) and some suck less (what is the back button for, anyway? Just ignore it). But they all suck.
And yes, users do care about using shitty stacks when they make shitty results.
That’s actually the area I currently work in, though not banking specifically. We do financial software for small governments. All the software was written in the 80s and 90s and we’re babying it along well into the 2030s in all likelihood. Those old systems require very specific environments which we’re now trying to emulate in the cloud. It’s fairly specific at the end of the day. And because this small government segment is currently undergoing consolidation I know what we see is the norm.
Thankfully I just have to maintain the cloud infrastructure and making it as reliable and secure as possible.
Banks.
Do you know why banks are still running COBOL on new, old architecture, IBM mainframes? Sure, it’s in part due to risk aversion, ignorance and inertia. But it’s also because, if in the end the result is the same, then the tech stack doesn’t matter.
Very few people are tech fanatics, most people want results. They care when the products don’t work. They don’t care how you fix it as long as you fix it in a reasonable manner, within an acceptable timeframe at an affordable price.
Doesn’t matter if the customer is a billion dollars bank or a social network. Debbie thinks javascript is when the barista puts her initials on her latte and rust is something to fear when it shows up under her car. Too many devs forget this.
I’ve done extensive consulting for financial firms, including mainframe-replacement projects, and that’s not the reason. There are two reasons: banks regard IT as a cost center, so they systematically underinvest. They never budget for lifecyle maintenance, they just kick the can down the road as far as they can. In addition to that, hardly anyone who wrote that COBOL code is still alive, and when it was written in the 1970s or 80s, the requirements and design were seldom documented, and after decades of code maintenance, they’re no longer accurate anyway. So to replace that COBOL, you have to reverse-engineer the whole business process and the app that embodies it. And you can’t do like-for-like replacement, since a lot of the business process is actually workarounds for the limitations of that legacy system. And it’s even worse than that: sometimes that COBOL has some custom IBM 360 assembler behind it, and nobody remembers what that shit does either, and finding people who know that, or CICS, or the quirks of ancient DB/2 versions, is even harder than finding someone skillful who can write COBOL. So until there are new requirements, usually new regulations that cannot be weaseled out of, they let that sleeping dog lie.
The underinvestment is absolutely on-point. Very few banks see them as a platform business and think that their banks can do deals on excel sheets
In contrast, banks all universally moved to single page apps lately, and every one of them sucks. Some suck more (we don’t support you having more than one tab open while you are researching stocks) and some suck less (what is the back button for, anyway? Just ignore it). But they all suck.
And yes, users do care about using shitty stacks when they make shitty results.
They went to the cheapest bidders, and those poor devs in Chennai have no fucking clue about proper UX design.
If your users are aware and complaining about your tech stack, you failed as a Dev. The stack had nothing to do with it, its on you.
Edit: unless your customers are other devs, of course.
That’s actually the area I currently work in, though not banking specifically. We do financial software for small governments. All the software was written in the 80s and 90s and we’re babying it along well into the 2030s in all likelihood. Those old systems require very specific environments which we’re now trying to emulate in the cloud. It’s fairly specific at the end of the day. And because this small government segment is currently undergoing consolidation I know what we see is the norm.
Thankfully I just have to maintain the cloud infrastructure and making it as reliable and secure as possible.
As long as you remember that the cloud is just someone else’s computer that they have admin rights on.
deleted by creator