RPG Cycle (was Reinventing Code)

I will not get into another cycle-vs no cycle discussion....
I will not get into another cycle-vs no cycle discussion....
I will not get into another cycle-vs no cycle discussion....

Ah, the heck with it.

Using this argument, we shouldn't use EVAL's, externally defined print
files, or even externally defined db files either.  Many have not used
them in the past.  And they do hide things from you.

I fact, perhaps we should have frozen RPG at about RPG II.  BTW,  RPG
II required that you use the Cycle.  Who remembers SUBR99?

Any programmer that is not capable of learning new techniques (as in
techniques new to them) should think seriously about a caraer change.
Myself, when I stop learning new techniques, I figure it is time for a
change.

Why would you NOT use a very good feature of the language?  In most
cases, the RPG cycle is not subtle at all.  Only when you get into
matching records and/or look ahead fields does it start getting
complex.

Have you looked at your home grown level break logic?  If it is
working, then it probably IS the cycle.  Doesn't matter if it in RPG,
COBOL, or C++.

And regarding the "hidden logic" argument, what about the logic that is
hidden from you when you use a Join file?  Or OPNQRYF, or many other
features?

Regards,
Bob Crothers


-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Fritz <JFritz@sharperimage.com>
To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
Date: Monday, April 05, 1999 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: Reinventing Code


>I became a programmer as the result of a mid-life crisis.  (I couldn't
>afford the mistress or the sports car and needed an easy job that
didn't
>involve heavy lifting.)  I started in a shop that had almost no cycle
code
>in production.  Never having used the cycle, and having had
"conventional
>programming language training" at a junior college, writing level
breaks
>using logic seemed simple and natural to me.
>
>My point is that there are people out there (maybe a significant
number)
>who, for one reason or another, have no experience with the cycle at
all.
>Is it useful?  Probably.  Is it hard to do without it? I don't think
so.
>Remember, it's easy for me to say that, 'cause I've never used it.
>
>I think points a - d are valid reasons for avoiding the cycle
providing that
>you can write programs that are comparably efficient.  One of the
benefits
>of not using the cycle is that people who have never used it can read
and
>maintain the code.  For them, cycle code is "your snazzy way of
writing
>code."
>
>###########################################
>The above is my personal opinion and is not intended to represent good
>programming practice or the product of a sound mind.
>
>Joel Fritz
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Barber [mailto:MBOCEANSIDE@postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 1999 10:29 AM
>To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>Subject: Reinventing Code
>
>
>Not using a feature that the language has had for over 30 years
>is foolish and wastes company time reinventing a "new" method
>just to say you can do it. L1(et al) & and for that matter M1(et al)
>have a place in the big picture.. I have heard the ranting & raving
>over bad coding practices for years... some even have a valid point,
>but to ignore somthing because:
>
>(a) you don't understand it
>(b) you don't like it
>(c) it's not structured code
>(d) that's not the way you were taught
>(e) it uses the "cycle"
>
>is a serious oversight....
>
>I don't care for some of the newer "features" because I think it
>just clouds the picture for people who have to follow your snazzy
>way of writing code, but that doesn't mean I won't try to learn the
>new method for the sake of some future project that would require
>that particular feature... A good bit of the "new" features are very
>handy & strangely enough, "they" replace things programmers have been
>doing for years(the hard way)...I have been writing programs for a
good
>mamy years now and the methods I use are out of habit, not "style",,,
>
>I was taught(at a service bureau) you "will" write code that "anybody"
>can follow or you will no longer have a job here... That was years
ago,
>and I have used that "style" ever since..
>
>Just my ranting & raving.. Not pointed at anyone in particular...
>+---
>| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
>| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
>| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
>| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
>| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
>david@midrange.com
>+---
>+---
>| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
>| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
>| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
>| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
>| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
>+---
>

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---