× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Don't all these gyrations seem a bit absurd to you as well?


Yes, monolithic is absurd as well. Spring is extreme in one direction. Monolithic is extreme in the other. It doesn't matter how popular it is now, or may have been in the past. Extremes in either direction tend to be absurd. Even if you were a Java programmer, it may require a number of iterations through the Spring tutorial to get a good feel for it. I had to read it several times.

As far as frameworks are concerned, there is a difference between encapsulating commonly used routines into service programs which can be evoked by numerous applications vs. having a front-end controller dictate application flow based on who knows what?

-Nathan.




----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Murphy/STAR BASE Consulting Inc. <mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Calculating Cyclomatic Complexity of an RPG program

So you're saying that you wouldn't use any framework for anything because it doesn't make your life easier to write a "hello world" (trivial) application?  Really?  I don't think frameworks were invented to make trivial programming easier.  Besides, based on your example, it appears that you are using some sort of framework to do the magic for you as well.  Spring is quite heavily used.  I wouldn't expect that from an absurd tool.  There has to be some up side.  I am not a Java programmer myself, but I do know that MVC frameworks tend to make your life easier when you want to build anything more than a static web site.  The more complex the application, the more things that the framework has to be able to do.  Usually that means a larger API.

I've seen enough monolithic RPG applications that include thousands of source files to know that monolithic projects without some sort of code sharing are not fun to maintain.  The alternative is sharing code, and that requires a load of regression testing to make sure you didn't break something when you fix something else.  All those tests are for regression testing.  So would you rather search every source for that pricing algorithm, and hope you got them all, or run an automated test to make sure your change didn't have unintentional consequences?  It's a tradeoff.  I know plenty of programmers who would rather work in the monolithic world.  They tend to be afraid to change anything significant if they don't absolutely have to because it would involve too much testing (because they have to change more than twenty or thirty programs).  They would rather leave the bug, and address it a different way.  There are many creative ways to address a
bug right?  Fix the data ahead of time so the bug isn't activated.  Fix the data after the fact so that it looks right going into the next process.  Fix the bug in a limited number of places because it doesn't show up anywhere else (right now).  You only have that last option in the monolithic environment.  Don't all these gyrations seem a bit absurd to you as well?

Mark Murphy
STAR BASE Consulting, Inc.
mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.