
English: 
There are very good reasons for C
occupying a special place in the
firmament of languages, although I think
one thing to say at the outset is [that] really
it finds its maximum power - it's maximum
raison d'etre for even existing at all - if you
think of it as being the classical
system implementation language. Again, for
younger viewers, it's going to be hard to
understand and comprehend this. But if
you go back to the early mainframe era
you're getting really, really, powerful
computers - well by those days' standards -
coming along, from the early 60s
onwards. They were so expensive they had
to be time-shared between lots of users
and that in turn means you've got to
have system software that can multitask
between different people, different
people's programs loaded in the

English: 
There are very good reasons for C
occupying a special place in the
firmament of languages, although I think
one thing to say at the outset is [that] really
it finds its maximum power - it's maximum
raison d'etre for even existing at all - if you
think of it as being the classical
system implementation language. Again, for
younger viewers, it's going to be hard to
understand and comprehend this. But if
you go back to the early mainframe era
you're getting really, really, powerful
computers - well by those days' standards -
coming along, from the early 60s
onwards. They were so expensive they had
to be time-shared between lots of users
and that in turn means you've got to
have system software that can multitask
between different people, different
people's programs loaded in the

Turkish: 
C'nin çok iyi nedenleri var.
içinde özel bir yere sahip olmak
sanırım dillerin sağlamlığı
başlangıçta söylenecek tek şey gerçekten
maksimum gücünü bulur - maksimum
hiç olmadığı kadar bile varoluş için raison d'etre -
klasik olarak düşünün
sistem uygulama dili Tekrar için
daha genç izleyiciler için zor olacak
bunu anlayın ve anlayın. Ama eğer
ana bilgisayar çağına geri dönüyorsun
Gerçekten, gerçekten, güçlü oluyorsun
bilgisayarlar - o günlerin standartlarına göre -
60'ların başında gelen
itibaren. O kadar pahalıydılar ki
çok sayıda kullanıcı arasında zaman paylaşımı
ve sırayla bunu yapmak zorundasın
çoklu görev yapabilen sistem yazılımı var
farklı insanlar arasında, farklı
insanların programları

English: 
machine at the same time, all being time-
sliced with a little bit of time. But at
the same time, increasingly, computer
systems had to evolve into not just
being able to print out your output and
your answers but to store it in a
file; they had to run file systems. And
by the early 1970s you are in this
incredible situation that one of the
biggest challenges in programming - a
real-time challenge where you had to
keep people happy - was nothing more or
less than the operating system in your
computer. One of the hardest challenges
going. And, yeah, the wisdom was: "You will
only ever be able to do this in
assembler". Some of the low-level tricks
you need to do in operating systems - you
know the `real man' attitude: "Real Men use
assembler!" And I think a lot of people
said: "No, there's some truth in that but
on the other hand just a little bit of

Turkish: 
aynı anda makine, hepsi zaman-
biraz zaman dilimlenmiş. Ama şu anda
Aynı zamanda, giderek, bilgisayar
sistemler sadece gelişmek zorunda değildi
çıktılarınızı yazdırabilmek ve
cevaplarınız ancak bir
dosya; dosya sistemlerini çalıştırmak zorunda kaldılar. Ve
1970'lerin başında bu işte
Bu inanılmaz bir durum
programlamadaki en büyük zorluklar - a
zorunda olduğunuz gerçek zamanlı mücadele
insanları mutlu et - daha fazla bir şey yoktu ya da
işletim sisteminizden daha az
bilgisayar. En zorlu görevlerden biri
gidiyor. Ve yine de, bilgelik şuydu: "
bunu yalnızca ancak yapabilecek
assembler ". Düşük seviye numaralarından bazıları
işletim sistemlerinde yapmanız gerekir - siz
“Gerçek adam” tutumunu bilir: “Gerçek Erkekler kullanır
Assembler! "Ve bence birçok insan
dedi: "Hayır, bunda bazı gerçekler var ama
Öte yandan, sadece biraz

English: 
machine at the same time, all being time-
sliced with a little bit of time. But at
the same time, increasingly, computer
systems had to evolve into not just
being able to print out your output and
your answers but to store it in a
file; they had to run file systems. And
by the early 1970s you are in this
incredible situation that one of the
biggest challenges in programming - a
real-time challenge where you had to
keep people happy - was nothing more or
less than the operating system in your
computer. One of the hardest challenges
going. And, yet, the wisdom was: "You will
only ever be able to do this in
assembler". Some of the low-level tricks
you need to do in operating systems - you
know the `real man' attitude: "Real Men use
Assembler!" And I think a lot of people
said: "No, there's some truth in that but
on the other hand just a little bit of

Turkish: 
üst düzey işlemler - eğer yapabilseydi
dili yavaşlatmadan yapılması
çok aşağı aşağı aklı başında kalmamıza yardımcı olur. 
Bence çok
İnsanlar, yavaş yavaş, isterseniz,
süsleyici meclisleri makro olmak
montajcılara denemek ve tür vermek
sizin üstünüze daha üst düzeyde yaklaşım
yüksek seviyeli dillerde var. Ama üzerinde
diğer taraf, karşı orduların her zaman
diyerek: "Üst düzey diller - çok öyle
yetersiz! Assembler'a ihtiyacınız var
Her şey, ideal olarak ". Moore Yasası ödendi
Bilirsin Evet, kullanmayı göze alabiliriz
çok daha fazlası için üst düzey diller
eşyalar. O zaman, 70'lerin başında
denemede çok deney yapıldı. 
genellikle mevcut dilleri
sistem uygulama kullanımı. Ve
özellikle başlamış olanlar
bazı düşük seviyeli işlemlerde
biraz twiddling. Önemli oldu

English: 
higher-level operations - if only it could
be done without slowing the language
down too much would help us stay sane. 
I think a lot of
people, gradually, were, if you like,
embellishing assemblers to become macro-
assemblers to try and give the kind of
higher-level approach to things that you
got in high level languages. But on the
other side the opposing armies were always
saying: "High-level languages -  they're so
inefficient! You need assembler for
everything, ideally". Moore's Law put paid to
that, y'know. Yes, we can afford to use
high-level languages for a lot more
things in the early 70s. Then there
were a lot of experiments in trying, 
usually, to adapt existing languages for
system implementation use. And
particularly ones that had started to
build in some low-level operations for
bit twiddling. It was getting important

English: 
higher-level operations - if only it could
be done without slowing the language
down too much would help us stay sane. 
I think a lot of
people, gradually, were, if you like,
embellishing assemblers to become macro-
assemblers to try and give the kind of
higher-level approach to things that you
got in high level languages. But on the
other side the opposing armies were always
saying: "High-level languages -  they're so
inefficient! You need assembler for
everything, ideally". Moore's Law put paid to
that, y'know. Yes, we can afford to use
high-level languages for a lot more
things. In the early 70s, then, there
were a lot of experiments in trying, 
usually, to adapt existing languages for
system implementation use. And
particularly ones that had started to
build in some low-level operations for
bit twiddling. It was getting important

Turkish: 
Bayt seviyesine inmek ve
karakterleri çıkar. Sadece devam ediyor
ufuk, şok! korku! 16 bit gibi
oyuncak bir bilgisayar değildi - 8 bit geliyordu.
Yani bunu geliştirmek için bir dile ihtiyacın vardı.
farklı genişlikleri ile başa çıkabilir
nesneler. Tabii ki olduğu gibi ... sen git
bir türden - minimum gibi -
eğrisi. Bilirsin - bir şeyler kesmek zorundayız
aşağı boyutta çünkü aksi takdirde yapamayız
insanların satın alacağı bir fiyata yapın.
Ancak, donanım ucuzlaştıkça,
genellikle köşeyi dönersin. Ve
Aralık'ta bile görebiliyordunuz ve
[16-bit] PDP-11 mini bilgisayarları. Yakında
32 bit bir bilgisayarla birlikte geliyorlar
[VAX] uzun zamandır karşılayabilecekleri güçlükte
son. Ve tabii ki, o zaman
kesikli transistörler ve bileşenleri
baskılı devre panoları, çiplere yol verdi
teknolojisi. Demek LSI-11'lerin vardı.
Geniş çaplı entegrasyon, değil

English: 
to be able to dig down to the byte level and
get out characters. Looming up, just on
the horizon, shock! horror! as if 16 bits
wasn't a toy computer - 8 bits [was] coming.
So you needed a language to evolve that
could cope with different widths of
objects. Of course as it becomes ... you go
through a sort of - like a minimum - in the
curve. You know - we have to chop things
down in size because otherwise we can't
make it at a price that people will buy.
But then, as hardware becomes cheaper,
generally you then turn the corner. And
you could see it even in DEC and
their [16-bit] PDP-11 minicomputers. Soon enough
they come along with a 32-bit computer
[the VAX] which they can afford to make at long
last. And, of course, that was the era when
discrete transistors and components, on
printed circuit boards, gave way to chip
technology. So you had, like, LSI-11s.
It's large-scale integration, it's not

English: 
to be able to dig down to the byte level and
get out characters. Looming up, just on
the horizon, shock! horror! as if 16 bits
wasn't a toy computer - 8 bits [was] coming.
So you needed a language to evolve that
could cope with different widths of
objects. Of course as it becomes ... you go
through a sort of - like a minimum - in the
curve. You know - we have to chop things
down in size because otherwise we can't
make it at a price that people will buy.
But then, as hardware becomes cheaper,
generally you then turn the corner. And
you could see it even in DEC and
their PDP-11 minicomputers. Soon enough
they come along with a 32-bit computer
[the VAX] which they can afford to make at long
last. And, of course, that was the era when
discrete transistors and components, on
printed circuit boards, gave way to chip
technology. So you have, like, LSI-11s.
It's large-scale integration, it's not

English: 
separate components any more. And
gradually the curve turns the other way
>> Sean: How did this change in architecture
feed back into the language choices then?
>> DFB: Well, I think that it's two things. First
of all, can you get a system implementation
language that helps you do low-level
things at a higher level? And I still
think that, probably, you could say
that the most successful of all time - and on
that front - was C. It's not that there weren't
others. There were things like Bliss, there
were things like, even, Algol 68. And other
high-level languages, BCPL, were tried out.
But C had the great advantage that you
could see how you might port it. Ah! yeah!
Dennis, Ken all that. They're doing it on
the PDP-11; they'll be doing it on the
VAX but up come the SUNs, all of a
sudden. The SUN servers. Hey! can we port

English: 
separate components any more. And
gradually the curve turns the other way
>> Sean: How did this change in architecture
feed back into the language choices then?
>> DFB: Well, I think that it's two things. First
of all, can you get a system implementation
language that helps you do low-level
things at a higher level? And I still
think that, probably, you could say
that the most successful of all time - on
that front - was C. It's not that there weren't
others. There were things like Bliss, there
were things like, even, Algol 68. And other
high-level languages, BCPL, were tried out.
But C had the great advantage that you
could see how you might port it. Ah! yeah!
Dennis, Ken all that. They're doing it on
the PDP-11; they'll be doing it on the
VAX but up come the SUNs, all of a
sudden. The SUN servers. Hey! can we port

Turkish: 
bileşenleri daha fazla ayırmayın. Ve
yavaş yavaş eğri diğer tarafa döner
>> Sean: Mimaride bu nasıl değişti
Dil seçimlerine geri dönelim mi?
>> DFB: Bunun iki şey olduğunu düşünüyorum. İlk
hepsinden bir sistem uygulaması alabilir misiniz
Düşük seviye yapmanıza yardımcı olan dil
şeyler daha yüksek düzeyde? Ve ben hala
bir düşün, muhtemelen diyebilirsin
tüm zamanların en başarılı olduğu
o ön - C idi. O değildi
diğerleri. Bliss gibi şeyler vardı, orada
Algol 68 gibi bir şey vardı.
üst düzey diller, BCPL denendi.
Ama C senin büyük avantajın vardı.
onu nasıl taşıyabileceğini görebiliyordu. Ah! Evet!
Dennis, hepsi bu. Bunu yapıyorlar
PDP-11; üzerinde yapıyorlar
VAX, ancak SUN'lar geliyor, hepsi bir
ani. SUN sunucuları. Hey! liman yapabilir miyiz

Turkish: 
UNIX buna mı? UNIX'i taşıyoruz - gitmeliyiz
C derleyicisinin çalışmasını sağlayın! Alabilir misin
C derleyici çalışıyor - evet
Tabii ki yapabilirsin. Ve gerçekten durdu
zaman testi. Yani şimdi baktığında
mimarilerde "gcc" derleyicisi
desteklenir, sadece yazar
kendi broşürüm şöyle diyor: "Şuna bir bak, biz
bir şeyle başa çıkabilir! "Ancak, diğer
Bunun yanında, o zaman oldu
eğer istersen,
üst seviye diller - zorunlu
olanlar - daha belirgin oldu. Ve düşünüyorum
çok ilginçti - bence
80'lerin ortalarındaydı - James Gosling
Güneş'in etkili bir şekilde ...
programcıları çalıştırmak ve kaç tane
kullanırken hata yaparlar
işaretçileri. Ve hatırladığım kadarıyla, bir
Java tasarım gereksinimlerinden biriydi:
"İşaretçileri kullanıcı düzeyinde yasaklayacağız".
Neye bakmaya başladığımızda
programlar ters gidiyor
işaretçilerle hatalar yaptı. Yani bu nedenle

English: 
UNIX to this? We're porting UNIX - we got to
get the C compiler working! Can you get
the C compiler working - yes of
course you can. And it really stood the
test of time. I mean when you look now, in
the `gcc' compiler, at the architectures
that are supported, it just writes its
own brochure saying: "Just look at this, we
can cope with anything!" However, the other
side of that, was then the
differentiation to, if you like,
higher-level languages - even imperative
ones - just became more marked. And I think
it was very interesting that - I think it
was in the mid to late 80s - James Gosling
of Sun effectively ... it's people who
run programmers and see how many
mistakes they make when they're using
pointers. And, as far as I recall it, one
of the design requirements of Java was:
"We're gonna ban pointers at user level".
When we start looking at why
programs go wrong it's people who've
made mistakes with pointers. So therefore

English: 
UNIX to this? We're porting UNIX - we got to
get the C compiler working! Can you get
the C compiler working - yes of
course you can. And it really stood the
test of time. I mean when you look now, in
the `gcc' compiler, at the architectures
that are supported, it just writes its
own brochure saying: "Just look at this, we
can cope with anything!" However, the other
side of that, was then the
differentiation to, if you like,
higher-level languages - even imperative
ones - just became more marked. And I think
it was very interesting that - I think it
was in the mid to late 80s - James Gosling
of Sun effectively ... it's people who
run programmers and see how many
mistakes they make when they're using
pointers. And, as far as I recall it, one
of the design requirements of Java was:
"We're gonna ban pointers at user level".
When we start looking at why
programs go wrong it's people who've
made mistakes with pointers. So therefore

English: 
we're gonna ban them. I'm actually not
against that. If you really don't need to
do low-level manipulations of pointers
then let the language do it for you.
Or if it's like C++ where you could do
them and you say I don't want to do all
my clever stuff under the hood - I'm not
writing an operating system. Yeah! get
hold of a library full of functions and
trust them because they'll have been
tested. They'll be efficient and all this kind
of thing.  So, yes, things like functional
languages, which of course always used to -
still do! -  get flak for being so slow,
They became more and more possible to do
I suppose Brian [Kernighan] might say they got
`less and less inefficient' y'know. But
no, it was a liberation to have that much
compute power around that you didn't
have to think too much. I'm glad that
many sensible souls on the comment
streams of recent videos have said this.

English: 
we're gonna ban them. I'm actually not
against that. If you really don't need to
do low-level manipulations of pointers
then let the language do it for you.
Or if it's like C++ where you could do
them and you say I don't want to do all
my clever stuff under the hood - I'm not
writing an operating system. Yeah! get
hold of a library full of functions and
trust them because they'll have been
tested. They'll be efficient and all this kind
of thing.  So, yes, things like functional
languages [e.g. Haskell], which of course always used to -
still do! -  get flak for being so slow,
They became more and more possible to do
I suppose Brian [Kernighan] might say they got
`less and less inefficient' y'know. But
no, it was a liberation to have that much
compute power around that you didn't
have to think too much. I'm glad that
many sensible souls on the comment
streams of recent videos have said this.

Turkish: 
Onları yasaklayacağız. Ben aslında değilim
Buna karşı. Gerçekten ihtiyacın yoksa
İşaretçilerin düşük düzeyli manipülasyonlarını yapabilir
sonra dilin sizin için yapmasına izin verin.
Ya da nerede yapabileceğini C ++ gibi ise
onlar ve sen de hepsini yapmak istemediğimi söylüyorsun
zekice şeyler kaputun altında - değilim
işletim sistemi yazmak. Evet! almak
fonksiyonlarla dolu bir kütüphaneyi tutun ve
onlara güven çünkü onlar olacak
test etti. Tüm bu tür verimli olacaklar
Şey Yani, evet, işlevsel gibi şeyler
Elbette her zaman için kullanılan diller [örneğin Haskell], -
hala yap! - çok yavaş olduğu için pırıltı olsun,
Yapmak gittikçe daha mümkün hale geldiler
Galiba Brian [Kernighan] aldıklarını söyleyebilir
`daha az ve daha az verimsiz '. Fakat
hayır, bu kadarı olması bir kurtuluştu
Etrafında olmayan gücü hesapla
çok fazla düşünmek zorundayım. Buna sevindim
yorumda birçok mantıklı ruh
Son videoların akışları bunu söyledi.

English: 
It's no good getting theological about:
"You're not a real programmer if you don't
program in C" or anything silly like
that. You've got to have an attitude of
`horses for courses': the right programming
language for the right task. If it's
yelling out to use Python, use Python. If
it's yelling out to use AWK - as I've
been known to do ... Yeah! I tried out, as you
know, my Reed-Muller `messages from Mars'
I got it ... hacked it together in AWK.
Well, why not? You can always take the
view that if it's not efficient
enough we can drive down to a lower
level, more efficient, language. But the
ability to try things out, without them
taking hours and hours - because of really
fast hardware - is probably about the
biggest liberation I can think of in
terms of my professional career as a
computer scientist. 
>> Sean: You know I'm not a programmer. 
I mean, one day it might make a
video - my bad exploration of BASIC in my
youth. But, as a non programmer I suppose

English: 
It's no good getting theological about:
"You're not a real programmer if you don't
program in C" or anything silly like
that. You've got to have an attitude of
`horses for courses': the right programming
language for the right task. If it's
yelling out to use Python, use Python. If
it's yelling out to use AWK - as I've
been known to do ... Yeah! I tried out, as you
know, my Reed-Muller `messages from Mars'
I got it ... hacked it together in AWK.
Well, why not? You can always take the
view that if it's not efficient
enough we can drive down to a lower
level, more efficient, language. But the
ability to try things out, without them
taking hours and hours - because of really
fast hardware - is probably about the
biggest liberation I can think of in
terms of my professional career as a
computer scientist. 
>> Sean: You know I'm not a programmer. 
I mean, one day it might make a
video - my bad exploration of BASIC in my
youth. But, as a non programmer I suppose

Turkish: 
Bunun hakkında teolojik olmak iyi değil:
"Yapmazsan, gerçek bir programcı değilsin
C "deki program veya aptalca bir şey
söyledi. Bir tutuma sahip olmalısın
`kurslar için atlar ': doğru programlama
doğru görev için dil. Eğer öyleyse
Python'u kullanmak için bağırıyor, Python'u kullanın. Eğer
AWK kullanmaya bağırıyor
yapmak için biliniyor ... Evet! Denedim, senin gibi
biliyorum, Reed-Muller'ım Mars'tan mesajlar '
Anladım ... AWK'da birlikte hacklendi.
Peki neden olmasın? Her zaman alabilir
verimli değilse
yeterince aşağı inebiliriz
seviye, daha verimli, dil. Fakat
şeyleri denemeden, onlarsız denemek
saatler ve saatler alıyor - gerçekten
hızlı donanım - muhtemelen
aklıma gelen en büyük kurtuluş
Mesleki kariyerimin şartları
bilgisayar uzmanı. 
>> Sean: Programcı olmadığımı biliyorsun. 
Yani, bir gün yapabilir
video - benim BASIC kötü keşif benim
gençlik. Ancak, programcı olmayan biri olarak sanırım

English: 
I come at this and think, well, why can't
there be one thing that fits all and my
kind of taking examples from
other parts of life. Presumably certain
things are good for certain things like you say>
>> DFB:  I think that's right. I think that
you see it in all sorts of other realms
in life. It's that you know the true
professional tool for doing something - it
was probably very different from a user-level
tool.  Y' know, I mean, if you go to a
hardware store and buy yourself a drill
with a hammer action, you know that's a
very different object from what they
would use industrially to hack into
buildings. It's in principle the same but
the whole spec. and construction of it
is very different. And that's what we
now have the ability to do, is to fit the 
language to the task.
Of course, it still leaves a big problem
that lots and lots of software ideally

English: 
I come at this and think, well, why can't
there be one thing that fits all and my
kind of taking examples from
other parts of life. Presumably certain
things are good for certain things like you say>
>> DFB:  I think that's right. I think that
you see it in all sorts of other realms
in life. It's that you know the true
professional tool for doing something - it
was probably very different from a user-level
tool.  Y' know, I mean, if you go to a
hardware store and buy yourself a drill
with a hammer action, you know that's a
very different object from what they
would use industrially to hack into
buildings. It's in principle the same but
the whole spec. and construction of it
is very different. And that's what we
now have the ability to do, is to fit the 
language to the task.
Of course, it still leaves a big problem
that lots and lots of software ideally

Turkish: 
Buna geldim ve düşünüyorum, neden olmasın?
herkese uyan bir şey var
türden örnek alma
hayatın diğer kısımları. Muhtemelen kesin
söylediğiniz bazı şeyler için bazı şeyler iyidir>
>> DFB: Bence doğru. bence
her türlü başka alemlerde görüyorsunuz
hayatta. Gerçek olduğunu biliyorsun.
bir şey yapmak için profesyonel bir araç - bu
muhtemelen kullanıcı seviyesinden çok farklıydı
aracı. Bilirsin, demek gerekirse,
donanım mağazası ve kendine bir matkap satın al
Bir çekiç eylem ile bunun bir
sahip olduklarından çok farklı nesneler
endüstriyel kesmek için endüstriyel kullanır
binalar. Prensip olarak aynı ama
bütün şartname. ve inşaatı
çok farklı Ve biz buyuz
şimdi yapabilme yeteneğine sahip, sığdırmak 
Görevin dili.
Tabii ki, hala büyük bir sorun bırakıyor
ideal olarak bu çok ve çok sayıda yazılım

Turkish: 
yıllar önce yeniden yazılmış olmalıydı.
Çünkü bir şey aldığın an
bu onun zamanı için iyi ve çalışır
günaha sadece yerinde bırakmaktır
çünkü işe yarıyor ve değişmeyeceğiz 
çünkü birçok şey buna bağlı.
İşte bu yüzden hala 8-bit Z80 var.
cenneti yapan programlar neyin içinde olduğunu biliyor
Silahlı Kuvvetler. Muhtemelen hala şirketler var
orada, vahşi doğada hala COBOL kullanıyor
büyük boy. Bir anabilgisayarın maliyetini biliyorsunuz
bugünlerde simülasyon? Yer fıstığı! o
program bize yeniden yazmak için bir servete mal olacak.
Ve yanlış gitmesi gerekiyor ve biliniyor
ve güvenilir olan şey hakkında sahip olmak
eski yazılım ve donanım ve bu kadar
değiştirmek için güvenmek zor. Onun
hala sonsuza dek bir sorun olacak bence, öyle. 
>> Sean: bir tane var
iyi bilinen ifade: "Kırılmazsa, tamir etmeyin!" 
>> DFB: “Kırılmadı” nın yardımı nedir?

English: 
should have been rewritten years ago.
Because the moment you get something
that's good for its time, and works, the
temptation is just to leave it in place
because it works and we daren't change it 
because so many things are dependent on it.
So, this is why there are still 8-bit Z80
programs doing heaven knows what in the
Armed Forces. There are probably still companies out
there, in the wild, still using COBOL on
mainframes. You know [the] cost of a mainframe
simulation these days? Peanuts! That
program [will] cost us a fortune to rewrite it.
And it's bound to go wrong, And it's known
and reliable so that thing about having
legacy software and hardware and it's so
difficult to trust to replacing it. It's
still is going to be a problem eternally I think, that. 
>> Sean: well there is a
well-known phrase: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!" 
>> DFB: What's helped the `ain't broken'

English: 
should have been rewritten years ago.
Because the moment you get something
that's good for its time, and works, the
temptation is just to leave it in place
because it works and we daren't change it 
because so many things are dependent on it.
So, this is why there are still 8-bit Z80
programs doing heaven knows what in the
Armed Forces. There are probably still companies out
there, in the wild, still using COBOL on
mainframes. You know [the] cost of a mainframe
simulation these days? Peanuts! That
program [will] cost us a fortune to rewrite it.
And it's bound to go wrong, And it's known
and reliable so that thing about having
legacy software and hardware and it's so
difficult to trust to replacing it. It's
still is going to be a problem eternally I think, that. 
>> Sean: well there is a
well-known phrase: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!" 
>> DFB: What's helped the `ain't broken'

Turkish: 
biraz, görüyorsun, olay bu, eğer öyleyse
üzerinde oldukça egzotik bir şey var
donanım cephesi, 1960'lardan itibaren, hayır
artık tam anlamıyla birini inşa etmek zorunda
O. Onun eylemini simüle edebilirsiniz. Gibi
çok çaba sarf ettiğiniz sürece
iyi bir simülatör oluyor, o zaman
sahip olduğunuz kod ile devam edebilir
Bazı durumlarda 30-40 yıl boyunca.

English: 
bit, you see, that's the thing, is that if
there's something rather exotic on the
hardware front, from the 1960s, you no
longer have to literally build one of
those. You can simulate its action. So as
long as you put a lot of effort into
getting a good simulator going, then you
can carry on with the code you've had
for 30-40 years in some cases.

English: 
bit, you see, that's the thing, is that if
there's something rather exotic on the
hardware front, from the 1960s, you no
longer have to literally build one of
those. You can simulate its action. So as
long as you put a lot of effort into
getting a good simulator going, then you
can carry on with the code you've had
for 30-40 years in some cases.
