RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

["albartell" <albartell@xxxxxxxxx>]

> So, you are saying we can all code like Microsoft and be ok with that?

Wow.  That was a big jump.

> I completely disagree with using production CPU cycles to fix programmer
spelling mistakes. Not in the 80s, and not in the 21st century.

Did anybody in this thread say to use production CPU cycles to fix
programmer spelling mistakes?  I think we are all well aware that the VP of
IT will be breathing through our nose hairs if we start slowing production
systems.

[Aaron fights Trevor for his shovel so he can start digging his own hole]

Aaron Bartell
http://mowyourlawn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Trevor Perry
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:56 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

So, you are saying we can all code like Microsoft and be ok with that?

I completely disagree with using production CPU cycles to fix programmer
spelling mistakes. Not in the 80s, and not in the 21st century. If WDSc can
do it with verify, and compile is still being used to perform that function,
I think it is just programmer laziness.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Payne" <CPayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion rivendell.midrange.com" 
<midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch


> Trevor,
> There is a cost related to the processor cycles to do the
> compile, and there is a cost related to the programmer's time to find
> any errors before he submits. With the cost of computer cycles going
> down as time passes and the cost of skilled labor going up, it was
> inevitable that at some point they would cross, making it cheaper to
> submit and let the computer find your errors. This happened in the 80's.
>
> Chris