by carlchenet on 10/4/18, 6:48 AM with 126 comments
by romwell on 10/4/18, 9:04 AM
They were fired by banks which are/were stupid enough to cut corners on people who know things about their infrastructure before migrating to more modern systems.
FTA:
>One COBOL programmer, now in his 60s, said his bank laid him off in mid-2012 as it turned to younger, less expensive employees trained in new languages.
>In 2014, the programmer [...] was brought in as a contractor to the same bank to fix issues management had not anticipated.
Also FTA:
>Accenture’s Starrs said they go through a “black book” of programmer contacts, especially those laid off during or after the 2008 financial crisis.
>The job ultimately took five years and cost more than 1 billion Australian dollars ($749.9 million).
So, in short: a bank fired some old people to pay a billion dollars to a contractor who would hire the same (!) people to do the job.
The 'problem' is entirely self-made.
by tannhaeuser on 10/4/18, 8:55 AM
Edit: a-ok, "cowboys" is part of name of that guy's consulting business
by taneq on 10/4/18, 10:54 AM
A cowboy is a loose cannon in the big city, but a "proper software engineer" is useless in the wild west. These banks have just realised that there are a few ranches left.
by arethuza on 10/4/18, 9:52 AM
by pbadenski on 10/4/18, 9:12 AM
by mxuribe on 10/4/18, 1:44 PM
by mikorym on 10/4/18, 8:53 AM
by RickJWagner on 10/4/18, 11:57 AM
For the decade I worked there, my buddy told me that his pal made a very good living repairing those machines, even though they were long out of fashion and 'there was no market'.
Seems the same is true for software, too.
by xte on 10/4/18, 10:04 AM
Before we have another concept, those from LispM, the "system" as a single entity of well_integrated stuff.
We have many example of those two way of thinking today: on "platform" side we have snap, flatpack, appimage, lx[cd]/docker, ... on system side we have Emacs, NixOS, GuixSD, ...
Well, for years the "platform" model seems to be the most reasonable, today seems ancient MIT&c hackers ware right, "system" approach is better. Simple to manage, for good software, do not hide bad practice, force collaboration etc.
On datacenters today and not from today we do substantially the same, in the past datacenters was a big collection of independent computers, now their are substantially all "a single computer" (even before The datacenter as a Computer by Google), made of many well_integrated components.
My poor English may not help, but I hope I have been clear up there, if so, what you think?
by zoggenhoff on 10/4/18, 11:14 AM
by ovrkil on 10/4/18, 9:25 PM
by bryanrasmussen on 10/4/18, 8:50 AM
by thanatropism on 10/4/18, 4:05 PM
Is "expired" a standard English synonym for pining for the fjords?
by tmaly on 10/4/18, 4:20 PM
There never seems to be time for documentation, specifications, and clean code
by bsg75 on 10/4/18, 3:10 PM
And continue to ignore. This is not a new issue, but the same story repeating over and over. Management purely via cost control is a terrible approach.
by _pmf_ on 10/4/18, 1:50 PM
by cafard on 10/4/18, 4:03 PM
by polskibus on 10/4/18, 11:33 AM