RE: Re[2]: What counts as technically slick?

Huh?  I'm confused... Todd didn't post that message, I did!

Is it April 1st, again?


On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, York, Albert wrote:

> Thanks Todd. You stated it better than I did.
> 
> I didn't say this in the original email but the developers who thought this
> was such a great idea, were new to the AS/400. They did other things which
> had to be fixed later as well
> 
> My point was that complexity in of itself does not add functionality. 
> 
> Albert 
> 
> 
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From:   Todd Sabella [SMTP:Todd.Sabella@alltel.com]
>       Sent:   Monday, April 09, 2001 2:39 PM
>       To:     MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>       Subject:        Re[2]: What counts as technically slick?
> 
>       hese are my sentiments exactly!  I one thought out and designed a 
>       whole system for calling a seperate "library of functions" to access
> 
>       a file, and in the end came to the conclusion that this wouldn't buy
> 
>       me ANYTHING but complexity.
>            
>       The externally defined files ALREADY provide you with as much of a 
>       layer of independence from I/O operations as these external routines
> 
>       do!
>            
>       I guess I could see doing this if I thought the files would soon be 
>       located on another computer, on another platform, where I'd save the
> 
>       work of re-writing all of the programs involved.   But how often
> does 
>       something like this ever happen?   It never has, for me.
>            
>            
>            
>       On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, York, Albert wrote:
>            
>       > On the surface it seems like a good idea, but what have you
> gained? 
>       >
>       > I still have to define the record in my program, so if the file
> changes I 
>       > still have to change all the programs that use that file.
>       >
>       > Also, if I do the READ in my program, it's obvious what I am
> doing, and 
>       > error handling is pretty straight forward. If I call a separate
> program 
>       > which does the READ, what have I gained? I have all the overhead
> of a
>       > program call and no clear advantage, that I can see. All you're
> doing is 
>       > adding one more layer of complexity.
>       >
>       > The only place where a program like this would be useful is if it
> is called 
>       > from a CL program.
>       >
>       > Albert York
>       >

+---
| 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
+---