On 9/30/24 5:19 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
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.
Technically, I agree. However, as mentioned, PRACTICAL
issues intervene. Time/MONEY/reliability are also very
important. These ain't the filthy-rich 60s anymore so
if it WORKS you DON'T mess with it.
So, in the real world, it's gonna be PATCH PATCH PATCH
until the whole world literally implodes.
My best guess, govt/mil/some-biz, will STILL be using
1960s COBOL apps AND the 1960s HARDWARE even 25 years
from now.
"AI" might come to the rescue here ... systems tuned
to properly understand old code (and their original
hardware) and re-write in something newer (if not
greater). Having HUMANS try to re-do such huge
code-bases is not realistic ... it'll HAVE to be
99.9% automated. For govt/mil it'll have to have
proven ULTRA-reliable. And esp the mil stuff - it'd
better work perfectly OR ELSE.
Some decades ago there was a push to induce/force
the entire world to use a synthetic language called
"Esperanto". However what would old Greek or Roman
or Asian prose and poetry have SOUNDED like in that
lang ? Like CRAP. A "haiku" is meant to sound/feel
right, but only in Japanese.
From the 60s into the early 80s, a VAST number of
computer languages were created and USED in more
or less relevant roles. Some had large libs writ
by super-experts we may never find again that
did all sorts of esoteric sci/eng/math/stat/AI/DB
stuff. This stuff is still woven into The System
at all kinds of, oft unexpected, levels. There
are TCL/TK apps that are still in the Linux/Unix
standard utilities even though pretty much NOBODY
develops NEW stuff using that. But yes, there ARE
still fanatical enthusiasts .....
I still write some FORTH stuff just for fun and
kicks. It was kinda MEANT for very early CPUs
and esp microcontrollers because it was so "light".
Every new installation I always add a FORTH
compiler Just Because. My last employer, I think
there's at least STILL one FORTH app for dealing
with collections of environmental data. A cousin
of mine, in the Sciences, is extra well-versed
in FORTH because that's what they had/wanted to
use Back In The Day to control embedded devices.
The Past does NOT go away gently.
Oh well, I've gone on too long again .....
Can't Avoid That Shit Rust - Even On Gentoo
Re: Can't Avoid That Shit Rust - Even On Gentoo
