Actually, I would rather say it is because the code has been debugged for 30 years... Rewriting all of it does not look so appealing when you consider that. This is why if I had that kind of decision to take, I would rather first do a wrapper around these systems/imported code and progressively convert the old code and all other things related to these systems (as was pointed out in other posts). Same principle as what is done with managed C++, except many more things need to be considered.
As the question to convert or not convert ... I guess it is open to debate (the Damocles sword: is it really necessary to "upgrade" ?), but honestly, I had rather not live another 50 years with this kind of system, thank you very much. Having worked or interacted with VAX/VMS, SPITAB and some others, I appreciate the architecture, quality and robustness of them, but my appreciation stops there. Sébastien > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brady Kelly > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:50 AM > To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Data Structures in .Net? > > Sebas: > > > There is a reason why most banks still run on mainframes with 30 > years > > old > > code. > > Yes, because they can't get people to maintain the COBOL/Assembler code > base. I used to work for a Big Bank[1], and these guys got paid a lot > more > than us for only this reason. > > =================================== > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor. http://www.develop.com > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at > http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
