Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think this is a key point. Old tech running perfectly fine; if it ain't broken don't fix it.

There's no way to be fully confident that what appears to be a simple update might not break the whole system. And I'd imagine this is likely what the bank is wanting to avoid rather than having to pay programmers to implement the changes.

You only have to look as far as TSB for a cautionary tale.



> Old tech running perfectly fine; if it ain't broken don't fix it.

Except it's not running perfectly fine. It's butchering customers' actual real names. That may have been acceptable in the 80s, but it isn't anymore.


[flagged]


It would seem you have an axe to grind that goes beyond the issue at hand and I don't think it's worthwhile for me to engage any further with that.


Haha, and yet you did. I've no axe to grind. But I then maybe I'm butchering the situation.


But it is broken, as it is unable to support frequent European names.

There's also the case to be made that if the sources are lost, you need to rewrite from scratch, as you never know when you need to implement new functionality that business deems critical. If you only start the new implementation after business is breathing down your neck, you are in a world of hurt.


Frankly, if your bank is scared of updating its software lest it become the next TSB, you should just move _now_; it’ll happen sooner or later.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: