Re: RE: More cycle, yes, more cycle

["Joe Teff" <jteff19@xxxxxxx>]

>>Difficulty is a point of view.  Most of these people are learning Java now
>>in school for programming techniques.  If the students can understand
>>encapsulation and other OO programming techniques, they certainly
>>should be able to handle simple cycle processing.

>The logic cycle should be easy for anyone using new methods as it can be
>regarded as the original EVENT DRIVEN programming language. :)


The point has been made already, but I think it is what causes the conflict
in regards to the cycle. With a very rare exception, programs that I've seen
that use the cycle are written in the "old style" of coding. They rely
almost
exclusively on indicators, gotos and tags to control logic. It is also quite
common to see internally defined files (even when the file is an externally
filed). This enforces the belief by many that the cycle belongs in the days
gone by because it is evil. The cycle may have a better reputation if there
were more programs using it that didn't have all of the access baggage.
I am currently training new programmers in RPG. Because of the demand,
they will learn RPG/400 first and then RPG IV later (not my choice). I find
it easier to teach RPG with the cycle on the first few programs because
they can write them without any C-specs. As they learn the Op Codes, we
switch to using full procedural. I don't find that the people are confused
about the cycle. They see it as part of the language and accept it as
such.

Joe Teff

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---