RE: Benefits of Sub-procedures

On 24-10-03 at 12:20 Joe Pluta wrote:

>There are still issues.  Not EVERYTHING needs to be converted to BIFs.

True, but unfortunately the incrowd expects newer and more BIFs with the next 
OS release. I prefer more and newer opcodes, even making old ones available in 
/FREE.

>That question about incrementing an alpha field is a perfect example; it 
>should be done in a subprocedure, and if at all possible use >a data structure 
>putting a zoned field over the alpha field.  I mean, use all the tools you 
>have!

I think this is the crux of this threat. Before ILE the incrementing of 
sequence numbers (orders, transactions, invoices, etc) has already been dealt 
with in a seperate procedure, being a standalone programme, called from many 
applications.

So why reinvent the wheel or rewrite a good working, existing programme and 
tranform it to a procedure? Perhaps the only adjusment required is prototyping 
the call.

Or in a general prospect: if you have reached a certain degree of modularity 
with RPG III with little server programmes, why remodulerize it again with 
procedures and/or service programmes?

I worked in a software shop, where the reply to a request for newer coding 
tecniques was: "Our clients are not interested how the programmes are coded, 
only that those programmes work as intended and without errors." I think a lot 
of (software) shops have that attitude, as ILE requires a (complete) redesign 
of application development and the existing code (the legacy) is not that 
easily transformed.

Just my two Euro cents.

Regards,
Carel Teijgeler