> Switching to a safe language is, obviously, not an option.
Forever, never, ever, ever?
Switch, right now, is not a good idea, but NEVER switch is the cobol curse.
And not forget:
C/C++ cause BILLONS of damage and costs in this industry. Is WELL KNOW, for DECADES that is the wrong tool for the job.
Yet, the persisten myth that "lets not rewrite to something better" hold everything back.
Imagine how stupid will any of us look if a customer ask us for build a new version of the software (or port to the web, or to mobile or cloud) and we say "nope, sorry. Is not good. Not rewrite sir!"
Or if the software WE build have be caught, OFTEN with severe security and reliability bugs and we answer equally "we can't do anything better, is not a option".
Dumb, right?
Why rewrite is ok, normal and good for others, but not us?
And why the excuse that the MOST PROFITABLES COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (Apple, Google, MS, ...) can't do rewrite, is too costly.... and then the rest PAY the cost anyway, with not solution on sight...
Forever, never, ever, ever?
Switch, right now, is not a good idea, but NEVER switch is the cobol curse.
And not forget:
C/C++ cause BILLONS of damage and costs in this industry. Is WELL KNOW, for DECADES that is the wrong tool for the job.
Yet, the persisten myth that "lets not rewrite to something better" hold everything back.
Imagine how stupid will any of us look if a customer ask us for build a new version of the software (or port to the web, or to mobile or cloud) and we say "nope, sorry. Is not good. Not rewrite sir!"
Or if the software WE build have be caught, OFTEN with severe security and reliability bugs and we answer equally "we can't do anything better, is not a option".
Dumb, right?
Why rewrite is ok, normal and good for others, but not us?
And why the excuse that the MOST PROFITABLES COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (Apple, Google, MS, ...) can't do rewrite, is too costly.... and then the rest PAY the cost anyway, with not solution on sight...