6.6 million jobless claims.
-
Only 1 in 3?
-
3.3 million was last week, and now it looks not too bad in light of today.
6.6 million.
10 million claims in the space of 8 days.
@George-K This too shall pass.
-
Employment statistics released 2020-04-09:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/09/weekly-jobless-claims-report.html- 6.6 million Americans filing first-time unemployment claims last week
- total claims over the past three weeks now exceed 16 million
It's probably still an undercount because many states' systems cannot take in new unemployment claims fast enough.
-
My old skills are back in demand apparently. Most of these systems are still running COBOL.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
My old skills are back in demand apparently. Most of these systems are still running COBOL.
@Mik said in 6.6 million jobless claims.:
My old skills are back in demand apparently. Most of these systems are still running COBOL.
How long would it take to train a C (or name several other languages) programmer in COBOL? Maybe a couple hours, a day or two for the second string.
Assuming you don't have to get too deeply in BL and BLL cells.
-
Python's better.
-
@Mik No, but it does run big data and machine learning.
-
Read somewhere just yesterday that 1 in 3 households have someone who has lost his job or has his pay (or hours) cut.
-
I was the best COBOL programmer I ever knew. My code was clean, structured, efficient and stable. If it went down unexpectedly there were always sufficient breadcrumb trails consistently in the same places where one could find out the where the program was and what data it was looking at. If I detected something wrong and had to abend the program there was always an explicit report in the run logs that told you exactly what happened on what input record or DB call, why it was bad and if possible what to do to fix it and finish the run. Those things are pretty easy to do if you set up the structure right the first time. Everyone loved supporting my stuff because it was so easy.
-
@Mik said in 6.6 million jobless claims.:
My code was clean, structured, efficient and stable.
This might be a fun game:
Provide examples of COBOL code that is not “structured.”
It seems to me the COBOL language specification makes it virtually impossible for any compilable COBOL code to not be structured. From time to time I see C programmers deliberately write obfuscated free-flowing C one-liners that do brilliant things. That does not seem possible with COBOL.
-
That's really more of an assembly language thing, if you want to do really slick stuff, at least for older languages. But I would contend that if it's obfuscated it's not brilliant. Just obfuscated. I've seen a lot of that in C and other more recent languages.
The whole point of COBOL is an spoken-language-like readability, the ability of the poor sap who comes after you to understand what you did and why. And I saw a whole lot of poorly written unstructured code that compiled and ran just fine...until it didn't. You did not want to be the guy who got called at 3 am to figure it out. I always contended that programmers like that should be taken out back and shot so they didn't go to work somewhere else.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
I taught Basic COBOL, Advanced COBOL and Structured Techniques along with several other courses, in Kuwait, a long, long, long time ago.
Structured Techniques were a miracle of the early 70s endorsed by IBM. The best, all used Structured Techniques. It was certainly possible to not meet this standard.
