Re: An odd thing

[PaulMmn <PaulMmn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>on 12/30/97at 12:34 AM,  our friend PaulMmn <PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
>
>>I -did- find that, after writing in RPG for quite a while, the logic in
>>my COBOL programs seemed to resemble the RPG Cycle.   (:
>
>>--Paul E Musselman
>
>Paul, I am curious:  At that time it must have seemed like a "good
>thing"(tm).  But, now in hindsight do you still feel it was a good thing?
>
>I ask because so often it seems like people make fun of using the RPG
>cycle, and when they do it makes me feel just a little bit older again.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Booth Martin
>---------------------------------------------------



A 'good thing?'  Yes.  The RPG cycle is still a nice, solid basic structure
onto which you can hang the logic of your program.

Writing in COBOL, I had to, of course, 'fill in' the pieces that IBM would
normally handle.

The Cycle follows a logical course:  Input, Processing, Output.  I've got a
programming template for HIPO, that was evidently used to build programs
using that basic logic:  Input, Processing, Output.

Even now the RPG Cycle still does as good if not a better job of creating a
simple report program than do-it-yourself logic.  Imagine-- using a Report
Program Generator to generate report programs!  (:

It's when you get into complicated processing logic that it may be better
to 'roll your own' logic.  Then again...  why?  The Cycle always did a good
job for complicated update programs.  Or am I living in the past?

Why is it considered 'unmanly' to let RPG handle the logic for you?

--Paul E Musselman
PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com


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