• 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Isn’t it more COBOL than FORTRAN in terms of getting paid?

    I thought FORTRAN was pretty much exclusively used via SciPy in research & academia these days.

    COBOL is still powering the world economy on mainframes

  • Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Code that has lasted, with some maintenance, for 50+ years vs code that doesn’t work from day 1? What advances we have made!

  • night_petal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Around 2004 I had just recently graduated a shitty tech school as a DBA. Soon after I got a job via my father for one of his college buddies. My job was to convert old cobbled together FoxPro into something relatively modern. I was also hired simultaneously to the same company as a Java web developer and had to combine the two. I spent 2 hellish years there and haven’t touched code since, which sucks because I used to really love programming.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I would genuinely love to find a job coding FORTRAN, mainly because it means I’d almost certainly be doing some kind of scientific computing. Way better than most tech jobs that involve boring CRUD work you don’t care about at best, or actively making the world worse implementing the whims of some billionaire sociopath at worst.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Also, the code base will likely be pretty small. If something’s made to be delivered on punch cards and run on devices that measure their memory in KB or maybe MB, it’s not going to be a ton of code. Even if it’s pure assembly, it’s going to be easier than a huge automatically generated codebase.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s weird that “legacy code” is a pejorative.

    If your code has lasted long enough to be considered “old”, but is still so useful that it can’t just be deleted without a dedicated replacement effort… it’s doing something right.

    • regdog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Instead of “legacy code” they should call it “veteran code”, because it has seen some shit.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      it’s doing something right

      That’s where the problem lies, we know it’s doing something right but we don’t understand what or how it works, we’re too reliant on it to change it, and the workarounds we have to make to accommodate it are a pain in the arse.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I work with a different kind of legacy system. It was retrofitted to work with SOAP, OOP, and some other modern stuff, but none of the old farts bothered to learn it. When I inherited a SOAP service that system used, I had to learn a lot about it to get what I needed.

      And honestly? It’s been a lot of fun. It’s a unique kind of challenge, I’ve practically gained celebrity status at work, and even if it’s nothing I’ll be doing long-term it shows how I can pick up weird systems and work with others to make some miracles happen.

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Well obviously with vibe coded stuff, you just put the code back in the AI and ask for documentation.

      Problem solved. /s

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Fortran. At least it was comprehensible to a human brain once upon a time. And probably efficiently written.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      15 hours ago

      If you’re good at assembly you’ll be fine once you get past the bad formatting, short names, etc. that was common at that time.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Yeah really. It would be some tough sledding at first, but it would be far better than looking at some code with some nicely named methods and variables with lots of comments (with emoticons!) for days… only to find out it does absolutely nothing.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      On the other hand, you know the Fortran works and you can break it.

      The vibe code is already broken.

      I’m still pounding the Fortran button as hard as I can.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The Fortran is tight, works, and has 50 years of field testing.

    Much rather work on something old and proven than new and slapdash.

    • slothrop@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Watfor and Watfiv for the win, baby!
      Honourable mention to PL/1 and cobol…

  • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I’ll be the person to answer vibe code.

    • I’d rather rewrite either from scratch,
    • nobody will blame me for throwing it out, and
    • it’s presumably in a language I can learn more easily, or already know.
    • TheOakTree@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I was thinking this. Choose vibe code, start from scratch. As cool as it seems to work with FORTRAN I’d probably hit a brick wall much sooner, and harder.