Re: Rewriting SSA. Is This A Chance For GNU/Linux?

On 4/2/25 06:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/04/2025 04:32, c186282 wrote:

On 4/1/25 11:08 AM, -hh wrote:

On 4/1/25 10:40, Robert Heller wrote:

It should be noted that GnuCOBOL actually translates COBOL to C, and then
compiles the C code with GnuC.  In *theory* one could just run the whole code
base through GnuCOBOL and create a C code base, but good luck making much
sense of the generated C code...

>
I had to listen to a PMP rant all weekend about how profoundly stupid of a plan this is from DOGE,

>
   Musk's "plan" isn't bad ... per-se. As noted in a
   variety of news, some of those important federal
   agencies are STILL using 60s hardware & programming.
>
   The TRICK is getting any newer stuff RIGHT before it
   goes mainline. That old COBOL code was GREAT, never
   diss those narrow-tie Dilberts from the day.
>

I think that people here mostly haven't been exposed to business coding as much as technical coding.
 There is nothing clever about business *coding*. The clever bit is the business *analysis*, for which a very tight specification is written,
 The problem today is that many people can code, but almost no one designs the functionality any more. It's just 'thrown together'.

Good point.  This is effectively why my spouse's company had decided to stop hiring programmers and treating them their business (especially as COBOL became rare):  they inverted the script, to hire for people to learn the core business, and once they'd developed a competency there, they were asked if they wanted to learn programming (eg, COBOL).

   Anyway, eventually it'll be all AI code. We
   won't understand it - all magic thereafter.
>

It will all fuck up.

Indeed.  It is the 1990's "performance specification" but on steroids.
-hh