Also, will it be trained on the code base it sees? Most companies would be opposed to sharing their IP.

Edit: according to the website, the model won't be trained with your data.

They are either past retirement or about to retire in the coming years.

Maybe it gives us good tests ?

That alone for something on cobol might be worthwhile

https://www.hypercubic.ai/company

Please consider adding more background of the executive and heads of department on the about page to help us understand who these top researchers, engineers, and strategists are.

There are currently no names on the about page, not even the co-founders, however this claim that "our team unites top researchers, engineers, and strategists from pioneering companies and institutions" appears on multiple pages on the website.

It seems:

* Sai was an Apple machine learning engineer for 19 months, then a Apple lead machine learning engineer for 17 months.

* Aayush was an Apple software engineer for 3 years, then an Apple senior software engineer for 8 months at Apple.

Btw, this is Aayush and I was at Apple for almost four years and Sai was there for three. And we have Kevin as our founding engineer who has almost a decade of experience and has worked at Cognition and Windsurf.

Kevin was at Cognition as a software engineer for 9 months and Windsurf as a design engineer for 7 months.

Including company logos on the Hypercubic website because team members worked there for less then a year doesn't convey the endorsement of these companies I'd expect when I see their logo being used.

That gives off a bad signal to someone visiting your site.

Everyone's faking it till they make it but at the same time using a logo like that, which universally implies that you have some kind of relationship with that company or they are using your product, is not even faking it.

And that's ignoring the legal challenges you are up for if that company spots you doing it.

BTW this sounds like a genius offering

Had the logos been on their frontpage with no explanation, the implication would be that these companies are customers, but there's no such implication here.

(Btw, I appreciate that you're saying this from a place of actually liking the product, or at least the idea, - I think it's often true that criticisms are coming from a place of wanting to like something, but commenters usually don't make this bit explicit and then the criticism just sounds like harshness for its own sake.)

I'll admit it's not clear cut - but I feel it deliberately pushes the boundaries, as marketing often does.

But as far as the idea goes, it sounds like a fantastic direction. That should have been my primary message.

While I get marketing and faking it until you make it, I'm struggling to be comfortable with the idea that being with a company for seven/nine months and not holding something above a regular developer role (lead/senior/staff) qualifies you as being a "leading mind" or a "top engineer" from the company logos shown.

I'm not trying to be "harsh for its own sake", I've already been HN rate limited and have no desire to make that worse, so I wasn't sure if I should risk a reply, given this thread has also been manually down-weighted (I appreciate that you commented so we get more context), but I see another reply to your comment so safety in numbers.

I'm sure they're all leading minds and top engineers but I question if that applies in the context of those specific companies they're claiming.

I like the idea of the product, especially that their agents validate transformations against original system via mathematical techniques. It's my flaw that the thing that attracts me to the correctness of their agents also extends to wanting to see slightly clearer credentials of the team involved.

Your account isn't rate limited. Are you talking about a different account? if not, what made you think it was?

I got the error after writing out a detailed reply (which I lost as a result since the error is on posting not loading the form) so I couldn't have been fast enough to trigger a regular rate limit.

I thought it was unusual so I searched and found your explanation for this error message https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35157524

I assumed since I've had two warnings, a rate limit was applied.

Although given Anthropic have since removed the word "understands" from their page, I feel I was vindicated of flamebaiting. [1]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722979

It saddens me when companies abandon them, it takes so much effort to replicate their power. I often wonder why mainframes never had a more modern easier to maintain and manage programming language designed for them.

Although COBOL is one of the primary programming languages for the mainframe, it can also run Java and Python as the others have mentioned. COBOL itself isn't particularly difficult to grasp for modern engineers, it's readable and has an easy to understand English-like syntax.

The challenge here is learning and becoming proficient in the end to end mainframe ecosystem including the intricacies of z/OS. It's a completely closed off ecosystem and is not as accessible to play around with for the average SWE as compared to windows or linux based development.

And node.js: https://www.ibm.com/products/sdk-nodejs-compiler-zos

And Go: https://www.ibm.com/products/open-enterprise-sdk-go-zos

IBM z/OS essentially contains three separate environments: (a) environment for running traditional mainframe applications (JCL, VSAM, ISPF, TSO/E, CICS, IMS, DB2, COBOL, PL/I, etc); (b) UNIX-based environment (supports Java, Python, node.js, Go, Kubernetes)–it officially conforms to the UNIX standard, so almost any POSIX app can be ported to it–but sometimes with some difficulty, since it is a bit of a weird UNIX implementation (e.g. by default uses EBCDIC instead of ASCII–although the filesystem has built-in support for translating between ASCII and EBCDIC and Unicode); (c) Linux container environment (zCX), which can run any Linux Docker container, provided it is compiled for the mainframe CPU architecture (z/Architecture aka s390x)

It is quite common for people to take an existing application written using (a) and add new components to it using (b) and (c). Indeed, IBM themselves tends to rely on (b) a lot in adding new OS features.

I think the biggest downside of IBM mainframes, is everything associated with them is super-expensive – the hardware, the software licensing, etc. IBM charges ISVs thousands of dollars a year just to get access to a legal development environment. (Hobbyists often use pirated versions of the software, but not a good idea if you are trying to run a business, and IBM keeps on trying to make that harder–most recently they've announced they are going to stop licensing on-premise emulated development environments and force them all to move to the cloud.)

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos-hot-topics?topic=new-kuberne...

As a rule of thumb, if there's something in computing you've heard about, expect IBM to also have heard about it and made something like it for their machines. Sometimes they lag a bit but eventually they converge towards having their own of all things computational.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079.

Instead, write any text that you post to HN by hand. We want to hear you in your own voice: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....

(This is not a ding against LLMs - they're incredible tools and we use them heavily ourselves. Just not to replace human-to-human conversation.)

So the real challenge companies are facing is will there be enough people to safely maintain these systems in the next decade. If they do not, it means failures in credit card systems, airline reservations, insurance claims and more.

The last thing I’d ever put into mission-critical systems is an LLM.

So let’s hope it’s a mainframe sandbox so future COBOL programmers can learn on it. :)

In any case, COBOL systems work precisely because no one is constantly tinkering with them to “add a new framework”.

The last time I saw, someone made a “Hello World” app in Electron, and it was 220 MB.

Howgh.

I've heard from a global bank, they have one mainframe developer in the team who is past 70. She manages a critical credit card service and gets paid in the upper end of 6 figures to work 20 hrs a week. She's the only one who knows that system. Lots of stories like this.

Yawn this tired old yarn, again. Mainframe development was offshored from the US decades ago. These retiring cobol programmers simply don’t exist in numbers that matter. The market could be to the companies doing the offshore work, but they’ve been throwing bodies at this problem for a long time, maybe there’s a market there maybe not.

Now bringing in AI agents that are incredibly good at software engineering into the modernization lifecycle can completely change the landscape. That's the vision we're building towards at Hypercubic.

Previously you might need 50 engineers and 5+ years to modernize a mainframe application, now with Hypercubic, we can compress that down to 1/5th of those estimates.