RE: More cycle, yes, more cycle

[rbbaird@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Jeff, you are exactly right! the only reason you see those types of programs is
because with rare exception, cycle programming has been shamed out of most
programmers today by cobol/basic/c/(name your language) progammers who have
flocked to the 400 world for it's job security.

"old style" programming wasn't a style or even a choice back then, it was the
only way.


<original message:
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:41:00 -0500
From: "Joe Teff" <jteff19@idt.net>
Subject: Re:    RE: More cycle, yes, more cycle

>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.






+---
| 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
+---