RE: Cycle Processing vs. Doing it my way

OK - kids this is going really far.  So I state the following for all
the artists, and artisans out there - "why does it matter"  each one of
us, if approached would probably write a program differently.  When
pressed for time, we're going to use the fastest method we have
available to get the job done.  In shops that care about the code,
you'll see an elemental style of how to produce any number of things,
using a template - why bother writing a subfile from scratch.  Everyone
is bringing up API's and procedures and advanced %BIF's but the bottom
line to the users is did the job get done.  So we ALL have to think -
will someone following me into this program know this stuff?  The %BIF's
- well they can be looked up.  The procedures - well, now I gotta hunt -
the headers - they are usually in copy books maintained once, and then
the procedures are bound.  Yes this is VERY powerful stuff, but we're
creating black box systems that are harder to maintain since I now have
to bind everything together.  Using headers, and binding directory - I
can take option 14 from PDM instead of creating moduals, and binding the
programs, but it's now a hunt where some of this stuff comes from, and I
now can't just compile something with a *NOGEN option to find it.

So the argument is as such;  All methods of coding are complex, and hard
to understand.  The method chosen to complete the project is dictated by
the environment, the project, and the programmer IN THAT ORDER.  If
people around you never heard of the Cycle - you make full procedural.
If People are more comfortable with RPG then RPGLE, well - you can lead
a horse to water... SQL RPG is REALLY cool - but there is a reluctance
with "new crap" and "old crap".  If it's going to make the program
easier to understand, GREAT!  If it's going to make the enterprise
software easier to develop - GREAT!  If my programs are the ONLY ones
required to bind before moving to production, use the "big buss" theory
- if you were hit by a big buss, would people understand what I was
doing.

OK - I will not contribute any more to this.  'Nuff said.

Anyway - everyone isn't following the "state your age and years in the
industry" standard we established a few days ago (35,13 fyi...)

Since Charlie did a shameless plug - I talk about some neat stuff in
"Programming in Style" @ Common too... he he he


>Njal,

>I try to write my programs so that any AS/400 programmer should be able
>to understand what's going on,

>Does that mean you don't use pointers and based structures?  APIs?
Service
>program?  User-defined subprocedures?

>Should "any" AS/400 programmer be able to understand what is going on
if you do?
>I'd argue yes, they *should*.  But in reality not all of them do.

>Just like the cycle. <g>

>I can't help thinking that one (sub-conscious) reason for sticking with
the cycle
>is "job protection". I hope that I'm wrong, and that it's just lack of
time
>to learn all the new features of ILE RPG.

>Why are they mutually exclusive?  I love the new features of RPG IV.

>Doug


Andrew Borts / Webmaster
Seta Corporation
6400 East Rogers Circle
Boca Raton, FL 33499

E-mail: Andrewb@setacorporation.com
Corporate web site http://www.setacorporation.com
E-Commerce web site http://www.palmbeachjewelry.com
                              http://www.myfreeitems.com
Voice: 561-994-2660 Ext. 2211 / Fax: 561-997-0774

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Handy [mailto:dhandy1@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:09 PM
To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Cycle Processing vs. Doing it my way