RE: Compile error when using field in a subfield data structure

> From: Hans Boldt
> 
> Jack: A couple of months ago, we were asked by management to find some
> quantitative reasons for using free-form. Since free-form coding is
the
> norm in this business and the advantages are patently obvious to
> practically everyone who designs and uses programming languages (at
> least in the vast programming world outside of RPG), it turned out to
be
> a harder task than expected.

Or perhaps there simply isn't that much benefit, especially in
environments where it is the norm to program in small, readable chunks.
It is my contention that procedures (and even subroutines!) are far more
of a benefit than indentation.  If your DO loops don't span more than
ten lines, it's pretty hard to get lost.  On the other hand, if you have
ten levels of indentation, then the chances are you're writing
convoluted code anyway.


> But I did find one publically available study

A 20 year old study.  Exactly how relevant is this?


> "We conclude that in a large program, no
> indentation would be a real hindrance and very difficult to use. The
> same is true for overly indented programs."

In a large program.  By which they mean the entire program is one large
mainline, a programming practice that went out of style at least 15
years ago. 


> I can personally attest to that, working regularly with both properly
> indented C code and with traditional "straight-line" RPG code. There's
> no question at all which is easier to work with.

For you, Hans.  Many programmers find it just as easy to be able to look
at fixed-format RPG and be able to read it.  This is a style issue, not
an absolute, and there is no sound business reason for moving to /free,
especially with the artificial hurdles imposed by the RPG team.

Had the RPG team chosen to follow standard IBM practices and allow us a
clean migration path (something they could STILL do), then I believe the
uptake would be more than we see now.  It is the artificial limitations
of /free that slow its acceptance more than the intransigence of the
programmers.

Joe