× 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.


  • Subject: List Usage
  • From: "M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:01:15 -0400

Simon,

At 09:54 AM 4/17/00 +1000, you wrote:

Perhaps the ideal is a PROGRAMMING list for the CL, DDS, possibly REXX, OPNQRYF, SQL and
other general programming issues thus leaving MIDRANGE-L for the topics you suggest. 
Even when those techniques are being used in an RPG application they are rarely related
to specific RPG issues.

What say you all?  Should we separate the topics or alter the function (and name) of the
RPG400 list?

 I think that we should change it Midrange Programming.  Major exceptions could be Cobol, MI and probably Java.  RPG, CL, DDS, SQL (and to a small degree REXX) are part of the normal RPG programmer's arsenal.  Any other midrange language volume is so low that we may as well include it on the list.  Maybe us died-in-the-wool RPG'ers will learn something about the "outside" world!

I can see Midrange Dot Com taking over from the trade rags ... pity about the NASDAQ ...
the IPO for Midrange Dot Com would have been interesting :)

 David's probably making more off this list than most of the IPO companies today!!  :-)


** A read loop should almost always be a DOW.  The issue being currently argued is really
whether a priming read should be used or a single read in an IF test inside the DO.  I
used to be in the IF camp when I first started programming but after a while I started
thinking about the construction of the loop and the additional unnecessary IF test and
changed to the priming read. 

 I never liked the extra test, so I always preferred the priming read.  Also, after confirming w/ the compiler developers that the "additional" READ opcode doesn't add much to the program size, and the performance s/b better anyway w/o the extra test, that clinched it.


ITER and LEAVE (and the appalling LEAVESR) fall in to the
same category and I've said enough about them in the past.

 I don't see how LEAVESR is worse than a LEAVE.  I think it's better, since the scope is usually smaller and there is a definite exit point.  It's clear and even legitimate in structured programming.  A "we're outta here" statement to a single pre-defined exit point is fine, IMHO.
 
 -mark

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
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.