At one time early in my career, I considered CASE tools as a really
bad way to generate lots of code. After having followed many of the
so called "loose cannons" in several installations, I have decided
that "certain" case tools really might not be so bad. A case in point
is "master file maintenance" which every single shop has many, many of.

It's not uncommon to find at least a dozen different styles of "master
file maintenance" when in reality, all most need is just one. I was
given an example of a "Work with File" many years ago that was generated
by a commercial package(still being sold). After using this program as
a "model" for many other master file applications, I have come to the
conclusion that this application has really "long legs" in respect to
a case tool generated application.

This was "the model" that IBM had started to promote as the correct
way to achieve a consistant use of interactive applications.

That model remains to this day, as the exact way almost all interfaces
to OS/400 currently are.

Case tools aren't the final answer, but in some cases they are a
solution to a common problem.

For all programmers on this list who have ever had to follow a
programmer and make changes to their code, know what I'm talking about.

Buck Calabro wrote:
> [Talking about code generators/CASE tools]
> In this day and age, we don't write a 3 program application anymore.
> Requirements are more complex, resulting in more complex solutions.  From my
> limited experience, far too many "creative" programmers are loose cannons in
> the complex modern environment.  It's simply not possible to "know" all of
> the source code in a modern application, but how often have we heard
> somebody complain that they can't follow the code because of those darned
> "/COPY" statements or subroutines or subprocedures.
> CASE tools ARE efficient because they let an average programmer produce
> above average quality in her application.

This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page