RE: Standards and Egos (was RE: ILE Propoganda)

Jim Langston wrote:

> Actually, there are many standards we use every day programming.  Both
> for the end product, the program, and the way we program it.
> 
> If we know that we enable F1 for all fields for help, that is a program
> standard.  That says nothing about the way it is coded.  All programs will
> use this certain standard library list, again, the way it works, not the
> way it is coded.
> 
> I think we are talking about coding standards, however.  We will/will not
> use ILE.  We will/will not use the cycle.  We will/will not use 
> DoU or DoW.

I think that standards specifying which operation code should be used (Dou/Dow)
might be a bit too specific. OTOH I would welcome a standard that said no CABxx,
 CASxx, SETON/SETOF, CAT, ITER, GOTO, TAG. :)

To allow for using to features in RPG the standard could specify:
Use BIF's in stead of "old" op-codes if available, avoid device file indicators
if impossible to avoid.


A possible "danger" of not having strict standard might be that programmers
keen on new features will want to constantly change "their programs" to 
incorporate
the latest language features. This might be avoided by having rules stating that
only programs being rewritten (or heavily modified), are required to fully 
comply to
the current standard, or - (as other have stated) keep the standard unchanged 
for a 
relatively long time.


+---
| 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
+---