RE: Structured Programming Software Packages IMHO

Bad form to use this discussion as a sales opportunity but my old company
sell a very good As/Set bolt on for displaying As/set definitions.

View indented and color coded source code. 
Prompt fields in the keyword column
Step-into subroutine function for navigating code much better than in the
As/set ADK itself. Plus display Step into path taken - good for determining
program flow.
View pgm Field list
View Panel Layouts showing Soft coded Literals (MSGID) and Edited fields eg
9999.999-
Prompting of both Soft Coded Literals and fields to reveal the MSGID and
field definitions repectively
Display Panel assigned data models, files and fields (new version in
pipeline will show both batch and Display pgm Data models and fields)
View of Report Layouts (new version in pipeline will show edited field
picture and soft coded literal text! Will also allow prompting of fields and
soft coded literals)
View Parameters
View Data Structures
View Program Narrative
View program details eg Author, change dates Defintion, Source and Object
status
Search routines by String and Date Range (with implied Y2K compliance)

All of this in a non destructive tool which means you can never corrupt your
source code when simply doing some investigation.


For any more info contact me and I'll refer you to the right person.

Up front I'll admit my own interest - I designed and coded the thing off my
own bat in my spare time whilst on contract to the company so they own it -
Lesson always read the small print in your contracts.  However I do receive
a gratuity on every copy sold.

Regards
Graham Smith
> ----------
> From:         William Washington III[SMTP:w.washington@iols.net]
> Sent:         05 June 2000 13:26
> To:   BPCS-L@midrange.com
> Subject:      Re: Structured Programming Software Packages IMHO
> 
> <DISCLAIMER>
> I am a former SSA employee that, among other things, taught AS/SET to
> customers on-site and in a classroom setting.
> </DISCLAIMER>
> 
> Yes, you are at a disadvantage if you do not use AS/SET when looking at
> BPCS
> code.
> 
> Practically any higher level programming tool does things incomprehensible
> to folks that program in the "lower" level language.  The same is the case
> with AS/SET.  Especially if the AS/SET coding is poor.
> 
> If someone looked at the MI generated by the RPG compiler, and compared it
> to the clarity that can be achieved when coding directly to MI, the same
> things you mentioned would occur.  Or if I don't speak Spanish, but I have
> a
> translator do the work for me, the result will not be as elegant as if I
> spoke spanish directly to my target audience.   It's just the nature of
> the
> beast.
> 
> All AS/SET does is translates simple, high-level constructs into RPG "code
> snippets" for compilation.  (I know this is a gross simplification...)
> 
> Now, I've seen some pretty bad AS/SET coding in BPCS.... It gets much
> worse
> if the AS/SET coder has no concept of structured programming technique.
> But
> if the AS/SET coder uses standard, structured constructs, I would bet that
> the resulting RPG code is as good or better than 75 to 80 percent of what
> the RPG coders can produce.  (There are good and not-so-good coders in
> every
> langauge.)
> 
> The advantages of AS/SET are the speed of development and structure.  As
> far
> as I'm concerned, those are the only advantages.  But it is enough when
> you
> consider the size of the total ERP package.  Not getting the development
> tool used for an ERP package in "penny wise and pound foolish."
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> 
> William
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <MacWheel99@aol.com>
> To: "BPCS Users Discussion Group" <BPCS-L@midrange.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 3:52 AM
> Subject: Structured Programming Software Packages IMHO
> 
> 
> > Is it BPCS, or me not having access to AS/Set, or still programming from
> a
> > green screen work station, or my middle age?  (I started programming in
> the
> > early 1960's & am now in my mid 50's.)
> >
> > BPCS 405 CD = RPG/400 on OS4 V4R3
> >
> > It seems to me that BPCS/400 implementation of object oriented
> programming
> > has taken structured programming backwards at least 20 years.  In the
> early
> > 1980's I was programming MAPICS modifications which went to points of
> > absurdity with embedded soft code & I thought was more obtuse than the
> > symbolic machine language I was writing in the late 1960's.
> >
> > But I had no idea to what extremes of soft code abuse were possible
> until
> I
> > found BPCS using message members for every other line of some RPG
> programs
> &
> > a higher proportion than that in some DDS with no annotation of what
> their
> > function is.  Yes I know how to look up what each one is, but when there
> are
> > scores on each page of a program with hundreds of pages, I need a tool
> that
> > will automatically illuminate each of those soft coded whatsits as I
> scroll
> > thru PDM & throw off to the side what it is, like when we move our
> cursor
> > over some M$ windows or browser icon we get in tiny print what the
> function
> > is.
> >
> > I have generally had the expectation that as platforms advance, the
> tools
> of
> > our trade will be come more programmer-friendly & the ability to get
> great
> > power out of our languages without any obtuse coding, that becomes more
> &
> > more straighforward for a maintenance programmer to be able to
> comprehend
> > what is going on.
> >
> > Some BPCS programs are well organized, structured intelligently, but  H
> U
> G E
> >   mind boggling, while others seem to be an RPG emulation of machine
> language.
> >
> > Programs call programs seemingly to infinitum abandon ... it is like a
> new
> > dimension of spagetti GOTO from early days of Basic before purists said
> no
> > more GOTO because so many people were abusing it.  When I look at IBM
> compile
> > x-index charts there is no section or coding specifically listing all
> the
> > stuff called by this program, like it does for subroutines & exception
> output.
> >
> > I would like to have a hierarchical chart of who calls whom that is
> something
> > like a multi-threaded internet discussion forum.  The cross-reference
> stuff
> > from plain vanilla IBM is not really very intelligible.
> >
> > It used to be only the contents of a work field could be variable but
> with
> > *LIKE field size has to be looked up in the compile x-index because it
> is
> > like a field like another field like many links to original story & I am
> > crying out enough ... I want this compile to tell me way over on the
> right
> > hand side what the dimensions are of the fields being defined or used on
> this
> > line, so I can see if they are appropriate to the task at hand.
> >
> > As bad as this pretence at a high level language is, it is not as bad as
> M$
> > Win which I consider to be a GUI version of symbolic machine language by
> > folks who missed the computer science class on what is a high level
> language.
> >
> > Am I out of step with reality by expecting that software be developed so
> that
> > maintenance programmers have a prayer of deciphering the code in some
> > reasonable time period?
> >
> > The trigger for this diatribe is I just spent a second nite of 10 hours
> > digging into the JIT & SFC 600 610 620 series of programs trying to
> figure
> > out what is causing them to intermittently invent lot control (which we
> do
> > not use) batches within batches of transactions in which the original
> correct
> > transactions are misplaced & replaced with 2-3 bogus transactions in
> > non-existant locations in a different facility than where those items
> are
> > supposed to be.
> >
> > We have back traced this scenario to 20 other cases that date back to
> ....
> > around the time in late 1999 I was merging 4,000 BMRs in 3 months with
> our
> > modifications & congratulating myself on how well it was going ... we
> had
> > delayed REL-2 until we learned here that it had Y2K fixes.
> >
> > Al Macintyre  ©¿©
> > http://www.cen-elec.com MIS Manager Programmer & Computer Janitor
> > +---
> > | This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
> > | To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
> > | To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> > | To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> > | Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
> > +---
> >
> 
> 
> 
> +---
> | This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
> +---
> 
**********************************************************************
 This email and any attachments are confidential and solely
 for the use of the intended recipient.  They may contain
 material protected by legal professional or other privilege.
 If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible
 for delivering to the intended recipient, you are not authorised
 to and must not disclose, copy, distribute or retain this email
 or its attachments.  Although this email and its attachments
 are believed to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the
 responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free
 and no responsibility is accepted by the company for any
 loss or damage arising from receipt or use thereof.

**********************************************************************
+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---