Re: rpg400-l-digest V1 #239 -- RPG400-L

If you have to "burn the clock to hunt down exactly what is being UPDAT'd."
then I would say that was poor program design or documentation, or both.

Regards,

Jim Langston

"James W. Kilgore" wrote:

> Pete,
>
> I agree, "today" noone is writing 150 page programs. One writes 15 10 page 
>programs to
> do the same thing.
>
> Wait a minute .... I write 15 10 page programs that use service programs and 
>all of the
> related /COPY interfaces, and if I made them into a single "function" listing 
>.... I
> get 250 pages! <g>
>
> Even under the OPM model I never wrote a program that listed over 50 pages, 
>but with a
> gazillion "shop standard" /COPY members it COMPILED into 150 pages of paper.
>
> We are in agreement: it's the maintenance, not the development that burns the 
>bucks.
> Well, as long a few bucks are spent on the rare commodity of "forethought". 
><g>
>
> My point was maintain.  The UPDAT command with externally defined files, and 
>-no-
> output specs makes me burn the clock to hunt down exactly what is being 
>UPDAT'd.  And
> guess what, I have to study every module to make user -they- aren't doing 
>some closet
> file changes =:-o Talk about "hidden" functions! Who knows?
>
> IMHO, there is no better place in the world than the keeper of "the law of 
>the land".
> You can make up what ever you want!
>
> I'm all for modular development and code reuse.  Now sell me on why I should 
>write
> twice as much code then I have in the past in order to reuse it in all the 
>same places
> that I already have working. +8-)
>
> Now, remember it's already working, be gentle, but why should I spend another 
>500k
> changing it?  Shouldn't I spent it on something it doesn't already do?
>
> Regards,
> James W. Kilgore
> qappdsn@ibm.net
>
> P.S. Sort of sounds like the BIF discussion doesn't it?
>
> Pete wrote:
>
> > James
> >
> > Obviously no one is creating 150 page programs anymore, and code that
> > updates data fields is concentrated in one place? I have needed O-specs
> > for the last 6 years, I can't see me adopting them now.
> > This begs the question about how to persuade managers that some rewrites
> > really are necessary. I've been lucky enough to have a few opportunities
> > to do some rejuvenation work - in many places this is seen as a perk !:(
> >
> > I only wish that a measurement of the maintenance over-head costs of the
> > old-code had been accurately gathered to be compared with the new. I
> > suspect that managers have sometimes been bitten in the past by a less
> > experienced guy's desire to re-write a large function and in the process
> > to use every new trick in the book, including large-scale static binding
> > and too many procedures. The problem is that it takes several years for
> > a coder to establish a value system and a feel for code elegance, and
> > unfortunately the vast majority of coders (present company excepted) are
> > simply not interested.
> >
>
> +---
> | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
> +---

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---