I assume the store didn’t close their batches meaning the banks can’t process it so it sits on pending until it either drops off, or the batch is closed.
Comment on The opposite of shopaholic: shopcell
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoI’ve been complaining about banks for YEARS now! I can understand in the 60s why your bank account wasn’t up to the minute accurate.
I have a debit card. I have money in the bank. Why is a $3.19 slim jim transaction pending for a week??? I tap my chip, I type my pin, transaction goes through…my bank should instantly deduct those funds, and there should never be a “pending” status. It’s all digital! What the god damn fuck?
Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
lorty@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
I guess it depends on your bank and location in the world. Where I am you can transfer that, for free, and it is on the receiver’s account in less than 5s or so.
cm0002@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because of ancient COBOL code from the 3 major banks that nearly all transactions pass through at some point. Oh and they can’t rewrite them because
money“CaNt FiX WhAT isNT BrOKe”Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
By ancient, I hope you mean from like the 50s/60s when computers first started becoming a thing, and not like…the 90s. If the 90s is ancient, I’m just going to have to cry.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 weeks ago
In terms of technology, the 90s is archaic at this point. Imagine if your bank transactions had to go through a Dell running Windows 98 with a single piece of RAM measured in kb.
I’m pretty sure some parts of the US power grid are running on DOS and some of the medical system hasn’t seen a security update since Windows 2000’s end of life updates.
dan@upvote.au 4 weeks ago
What’s the problem with that, though? Systems like that are pretty much guaranteed to be isolated from the internet.
There’s no need to rewrite code just because it’s old. Code doesn’t expire. If it’s still doing what it’s supposed to be doing, it’s really not as bad as people make it out to be. Windows 11 still has code from NT 3.51 in it, because that code still does its job.
shottymcb@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
COBOL predates DOS by more than 20 years though. It truly is ancient.
shottymcb@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
COBOL was developed in the late 50s
dan@upvote.au 4 weeks ago
There’s a huge amount of risk in rewriting old code. That COBOL or FORTRAN code is likely rock solid and has had 50 years of bug fixes applied to it to cover every possible edge case.
It’s hard to justify the expensive of rewriting all of it (which would likely cost tens of millions of dollars) if the result is new code that does exactly the same thing as the old code.
rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
To be fair I absolutely do not trust modern programmers with anything close to that important.
Unless they’re using rust.
lorty@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
The code may be old but it isn’t necessarily slow.