|
OK - kids this is going really far. So I state the following for all the artists, and artisans out there - "why does it matter" each one of us, if approached would probably write a program differently. When pressed for time, we're going to use the fastest method we have available to get the job done. In shops that care about the code, you'll see an elemental style of how to produce any number of things, using a template - why bother writing a subfile from scratch. Everyone is bringing up API's and procedures and advanced %BIF's but the bottom line to the users is did the job get done. So we ALL have to think - will someone following me into this program know this stuff? The %BIF's - well they can be looked up. The procedures - well, now I gotta hunt - the headers - they are usually in copy books maintained once, and then the procedures are bound. Yes this is VERY powerful stuff, but we're creating black box systems that are harder to maintain since I now have to bind everything together. Using headers, and binding directory - I can take option 14 from PDM instead of creating moduals, and binding the programs, but it's now a hunt where some of this stuff comes from, and I now can't just compile something with a *NOGEN option to find it. So the argument is as such; All methods of coding are complex, and hard to understand. The method chosen to complete the project is dictated by the environment, the project, and the programmer IN THAT ORDER. If people around you never heard of the Cycle - you make full procedural. If People are more comfortable with RPG then RPGLE, well - you can lead a horse to water... SQL RPG is REALLY cool - but there is a reluctance with "new crap" and "old crap". If it's going to make the program easier to understand, GREAT! If it's going to make the enterprise software easier to develop - GREAT! If my programs are the ONLY ones required to bind before moving to production, use the "big buss" theory - if you were hit by a big buss, would people understand what I was doing. OK - I will not contribute any more to this. 'Nuff said. Anyway - everyone isn't following the "state your age and years in the industry" standard we established a few days ago (35,13 fyi...) Since Charlie did a shameless plug - I talk about some neat stuff in "Programming in Style" @ Common too... he he he >Njal, >I try to write my programs so that any AS/400 programmer should be able >to understand what's going on, >Does that mean you don't use pointers and based structures? APIs? Service >program? User-defined subprocedures? >Should "any" AS/400 programmer be able to understand what is going on if you do? >I'd argue yes, they *should*. But in reality not all of them do. >Just like the cycle. <g> >I can't help thinking that one (sub-conscious) reason for sticking with the cycle >is "job protection". I hope that I'm wrong, and that it's just lack of time >to learn all the new features of ILE RPG. >Why are they mutually exclusive? I love the new features of RPG IV. >Doug Andrew Borts / Webmaster Seta Corporation 6400 East Rogers Circle Boca Raton, FL 33499 E-mail: Andrewb@setacorporation.com Corporate web site http://www.setacorporation.com E-Commerce web site http://www.palmbeachjewelry.com http://www.myfreeitems.com Voice: 561-994-2660 Ext. 2211 / Fax: 561-997-0774 -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Handy [mailto:dhandy1@bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:09 PM To: rpg400-l@midrange.com Subject: Re: Cycle Processing vs. Doing it my way
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.