|
Capt j, >In order for someone to write and post an alternative to be judged, we would >need a judge that didn't know the logic cycle, >From the sounds of things, many people on this board would qualify as not knowing the cycle. >to prove the point that maintenance is more readily "do-able" ... >and doesn't have to know an obscure "cycle running in the background" type >thing... Most routine maintenance will fall in the category of making changes other than the level breaks, so even if the programmer had no clue what the cycle was doing, by using appriopriately named subroutines or procedures they better be able to readily figure out what section of code needs to be changed -- or I'd submit they still don't qualify as "competent". And if the maintenance *is* to change the level breaks, that is fairly self-evident too -- even if you don't understand how / why it works. It does *not* take years of experience working with a punched card reader to understand level breaks. Doug
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.