RE: Adoption of new RPG techniques

[Seth.D.Shields@xxxxxxxx]

>> From: Seth.D.Shields@xxxxxxxx
>> </Joe Pluto wrote>
>
>Seth, how about getting the name right <grin>.
>
>Pluto is either a planet or a Disney character.
>
>Anyway...

Sorry Joe,
...not intentional.  I think I've been watching too much Science Channel.<g>


>> With all due respect Joe, I don't think I have ever written a five
>line
>> program with one if/endif.  Most programs are much, much
>> larger than that and include embedded DOs, IFs, SELECT/WHENs, FORs,
>etc.
>> As far as I am concerned, free format makes a huge
>> difference in readability and maintainability.  I would define that as
>> revolutionary.
>
>If you're converting a 500-line mainline into /free, I contend that
>you're actually abusing the syntax.

I didn't say anything about converting existing code.  I'm talking about new 
code.

>Using procedures to break the code
>into readable fragments is far more revolutionary than indenting a long
>monolithic chunk of procedural code, and procedures were introduced with
>fixed format RPG IV.

I do use procedures.  It has probably been a couple of years since I have 
written a subroutine.

>The code fragment I showed is a procedure.  The idea behind procedures
>is to allow you to write five-line pieces of code.  In fact, most
>programming texts I read say that a procedure shouldn't span more than a
>page, and you shouldn't go more than two levels of nesting.  And in that
>environment, indenting is a lot less of an issue.
>
>Three- and four-level nested code should be reviewed for possible
>refactoring.  Five-level code should be sanity checked.  Six-level and
>above needs to be rewritten in MI <smile>.
>
>Joe

My programs are very structured following all of the afore mentioned structured 
programming practices.  Please don't assume
otherwise.
With that said, I do have structured programs that are 500 lines long.  Even 
with one and two levels of nesting and yes, "sometimes"
three, I feel it is much more readable.

Kind regards,
Seth Shields