RE: Adoption of new RPG techniques

> From: Seth.D.Shields@xxxxxxxx
> 
> I didn't say anything about converting existing code.  I'm talking
about
> new code.

All the same issues apply: single-page procedures, two to three levels
of nesting.  It's in all the literature <smile>.  Kidding aside, I don't
think there's anybody out there who recommends 500-line procedures.


> My programs are very structured following all of the afore mentioned
> structured programming practices.  Please don't assume
> otherwise.

"Structured" and "maintainable" aren't necessarily synonymous, and after
many years I've come to the conclusion that the only good code is
maintainable code.  And note that I'm not implying that your code is not
maintainable!  Just that I've found that 500-line procedures are
inherently less maintainable than shorter ones.


> With that said, I do have structured programs that are 500 lines long.
> Even with one and two levels of nesting and yes, "sometimes"
> three, I feel it is much more readable.

We're getting into the fuzzy area of "programming style" here.  Like I
said my last post to Mike, it's all about maintainability.  The reason I
don't like long procedures is because I'm old and I lose context easily
<grin>.  Seriously, if I have to flip through seven pages of code to see
the end of a programming construct, it's hard to maintain, IN MY
OPINION, no matter how nicely you indent it.

I should always be able to see an entire construct on a single page.
That's one of the very nice things about the PC-based editors - the
screen page has been extended to 50 lines or so.  But that's necessary
now that RPG is using longer field names and multiple-line statements. 

Of course, this is a "convention", not a rule, and in exceptional
circumstances it needs to be broken.  But if you regularly write
500-line mainlines or procedures, then I think that I would find your
code a little harder to maintain than that of someone who likes to stick
with 40 or 50 line (or 4 or 5 line) procedures.

Joe