RE: More cycle, yes, more cycle

On 04/06/99 01:18:45 PM "Fisher, Don"  wrote:

>The interesting thing about this whole conversation is that, at least for
>me, it is really moot.  I haven't designed or coded a report or 
interactive
>function in years that would yield a remotely understandable cycle 
program.
>Perhaps a couple of purge programs could have been written using the 
cycle,
>but why bother when I have good shells using "DO" and "IF" logic?

The point, exactly!
The cycle works great for simple stuff, but the current crop of apps is 
more complex, and sees little use in new work.  I'd personally view use of 
the cycle as an excercise in "style."   If the programmer uses the cycle in 
new work, it's undoubtedly a simple job, so the program will be easy to 
write and maintain.  Our shop has enough legacy code that somebody is 
working with cycle programs frequently anyway.  The additional maintenance 
"burden" of a small level-break report is minimal in this instance. 

Buck Calabro
Billing Concepts Inc, Albany, NY
Opinions expressed are mine, all mine...
mailto:mcalabro@commsoft.net
+---
| 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
+---