Settings

Theme

Elon Musk's DOGE team may need a crash course in COBOL

fastcompany.com

45 points by rbc a year ago · 41 comments

Reader

ronbenton a year ago

The problem isn't that they don't know COBOL. The problem is they're not asking questions about things they don't understand. That's very dangerous in legacy code environments.

mrbombastic a year ago

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why would they have to make changes to cobol at all if there stated goal is to reduce spending? Wouldn’t it be more like figure out the outflows and just auditing spending and then turning some off?

  • cowboylowrez a year ago

    they're operating under a department created by Obama to improve software, so while the department musk is "running" has wildly different goals than the original department did, I'm thinking dorking with software is the ONLY leverage they have. Unfortunately for the country, we use lots of software lol insert sad trombone sound here

    If it were an honest attempt to reduce spending, wouldn't it happen in congress?

ozozozd a year ago

So many Elon threads, some with conservative defenders, no mention of Chesterton’s fence by anyone, when it’s so apt.

More importantly, Chesterton’s fence is a conservative idea. And it’s an important idea. I am not a conservative, but I am not a total idiot so I can appreciate the wisdom of _not tearing down the fence without understanding why it’s put up there._

6510 a year ago

If you remove everyone who says it cant be done from the room you are left with people who all think it is possible.

(hahaha)

9front a year ago

"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as criminal offense" Edsger Dijkstra, 1975.

Gee101 a year ago

Musk runs companies where software mistakes can kill people. I would give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to software.

  • elonistheworst a year ago

    Musk runs a company that makes a product called "Full Self Driving" that cannot safely or legally be used for full self driving, and has therefore injured hundreds and killed north of 50 people. Under no circumstances should be be given the benefit of the doubt with anyone's safety, finances, or wellbeing.

    • tmn a year ago

      This is a kind of weird rationalization where the conclusion leads the interpretation of the facts.

      It’s hard to get away from the fact that space x and Tesla deal with critical systems. And by most accounts, they’ve pushed things forward

      • croes a year ago

        Yes, and they studied and tested years to get it right.

        This is pre-alpha test in productive systems

  • ozozozd a year ago

    The nice thing about software is you don’t need the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. It either runs or doesn’t. Your website is either hacked or isn’t.

  • kccoder a year ago

    Musk long ago lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt on anything. The man lies constantly, has the temperament and self-control of small child, an ego the size of Jupiter, is reportedly a ketamine addict, and has verifiably silly things about software design and development. He's completely self-serving. Everything he says is for his own benefit. If you view his statements through that lens you'll quickly have a better understanding of what is happening. I have a similar lens for Trump: The opposite of what he says is closer to the truth. It's incredibly reliable.

    • jkubicek a year ago

      > has verifiably silly things about software design and development

      Even if you're willing to ignore everything else you said, you'd think a group like Hacker News commenters would recognize how obviously out of touch Musk is with anything software related.

  • croes a year ago

    Musk runs companies where software mistakes killed people but he doesn't change his behavior.

minimaxir a year ago

I tested it and it turns out LLMs can follow commands such as "Port the following Python code to COBOL", although it's certainly harder to validate the output is correct.

  • lowlevel a year ago

    No need to check. It isn't.

  • mek6800d2 a year ago

    You're porting in the WRONG direction. The existing COBOL code is undoubtedly using system utilities such as database management systems, etc. on the mainframe computers. And I doubt that you've written Python code that smoothly integrates into that system environment and just needs to be ported to COBOL. And I doubt that the mini-Musks can do so. (I'm not including the massive application-specific knowledge that you and they would or should need to grasp before attempting to insert code into the system.)

  • YeGoblynQueenne a year ago

    You don't understand. Your COBOL code may be 99.99999% right and still cause millions of dollars to vanish :poof: in a flash.

    If the DOGE team have this bright idea of getting an LLM to mess with the COBOL on mainframes there is going to be widespread chaos beyond human imagination.

  • minimaxir a year ago

    (to be clear this is most definitely not an endorsement of this approach, but you know DOGE is going to try it anyways)

  • croes a year ago

    It's useless to port the code if you don't understand the data.

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection