|
Joe wrote: >However, it's painfully obvious to me that the majority >of the posters on this list agree with you. Evidently >they, too, no longer worry about shops that have little >or no time for education, older coders who don't really >want to learn new things, and backlogs up to their ears >that prevent a wholesale conversion of MOVEs to >%editc(num:'X') for what would in effect be zero gain - and >in fact would require some pretty serious additional >testing. Well THAT made me stand up and be counted. The organisation you describe is hauntingly familiar to me. I deleted a tirade about legacy code that I see every day in favour of brevity. What I really want to say is this: Just because I don't argue _this particular issue_ with the same fire as you, doesn't mean I don't care about my mega-legacy code bases. I just have other stuff that's higher on my personal priority list (like full OPDESC support), that's all. Not ivory tower, but busy with other stuff. --buck
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.