RE: Cycle Processing vs. Doing it my way

That is a little elitist isn't it.


Thanks,

Mark


Mark Walter
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
Hanover Wire Cloth a div of CCX, Inc.
mwalter@hanoverwire.com
http://www.hanoverwire.com
717.637.3795 Ext.3040



                    "Njal Fisketjon"
                    <n.f@figu.no>            To:     <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
                    Sent by:                 cc:
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi        Subject:     RE: Cycle Processing 
vs. Doing it my way
                    drange.com


                    12/07/01 01:43 PM
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l






Douglas Handy wrote:

> Just to play Devil's Advocate here, the same argument can be
> alledged against
> using pointers, or most APIs, or service programs with binding
> directories, or
> ...  (name your favorite new RPG IV feature here).


I agree with Jon.

"Any" Windows programmer knows the concept of pointers, API ("Win API"),
service programs (DLL-s), which makes it fairly ease to understand
an ILE RPG program.

<flame bait>
A cycle processing program is nothing more than a relic from the old
age of punch cards and should be left in the "back of your minds" together
with left hand indicators, TAG, CABxx and GOTO!
</flame bait>


_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.