RE: page n of x

>Gary,
>You and Dave Leland make a good point that the 2-pass approach is not 100%
>accurate 100% of the time.
>But you also wrote:
>"The measure of a solution is not in terms of the effort required to code
>the solution, but rather in terms of the robustness of the solution."
>I'm afraid that is not correct.  The measure of a solution is in terms of
>the *cost* of the solution, plain and simple.
>
><SNIP>
>
>  jt

Jeez,   Thanks jt,    I didn't have to say a thing.

Some one once said,  ( Think J.Sears but not sure)  that "Simple
Engineering is Great Engineering"

If you have 2 Min print jobs and don't have the 12 hour runs,  my company
would never spend the money for the more complicated solution.   If it is
needed(Cost effective,  used by more than just one print program, etc, etc)
I would definitely  go with a more modular, "Correct" solution,  If not,  I
wouldn't  waste the time(the sentiment of my first post)  I have more
important things to program these days than a neat routines that one or two
programs in the shop may use once a month.   I wouldn't even download it
for free.  It would be just one more thing we would have to "know what it
is, where it is, How to use it,  when to use it, ........"

Of course that's just my opinion.    Cost Justification is a Son of B#$%
sometimes,   I do my play time at home on my 170.

No offense intended,  Just my business reality.
Respectfully
John Carr

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---