RE: Assembly programmers do it a byte at a time

>> People make things appear more complex than they really are
>> using words like "encapsulation" gives them the impression that it is some
>> strange new technology

I am not sure about that Bob. This me the ability to build subprocedures, 
service programs, etc is a new technology, at least, for the AS/400. 

The point I have been making all along is that, how can people know how to use 
subprocedures, service programs, etc unless they understand things like 
information hiding and encapsulation?

These things are not anything new. They have been around since the 70's but how 
many people on the AS/400 know about them? 

I have been on the AS/400 and System 38 for almost twenty years and all I have 
ever seen is huge subroutines doing dozens if not hundreds of functions. If 
someone takes one of those subroutines and makes it into a procedure, what do 
they gain? 

To use ILE effectively, you need to understand how to design a program, in 
other words, what those big words mean. Simply taking a 2000 or 3000 line 
subroutine and making it a procedure is not going to cut it.

I think the analogy I use with VB6 and VB.Net applies here as well. You could 
say the VB.Net is just a new version of VB but the truth is that it is not. I 
takes a different way of thinking to use VB.Net. Try to write VB.Net like it 
was VB1 to 6 and you are going to have a mess. Writing ILE takes a different 
way of thinking.  

Writing ILE RPG like you programmed RPG III and you are going to have a mess 
and you haven't gained a thing. I spent 17 years writing structured code in RPG 
before RPG ILE came out and it still took a lot of work on my part to change my 
thinking. Still working on it. 

I am not trying to scare people away, just make them aware that the old way of 
doing business doesn't apply. You need a different way of thinking to do ILE 
RPG. If you don't know what functional decomposition or information hiding or 
encapsulation means, pull out the books. Read up on it. Start training your 
mind to think that way. Design a subprocedure. Does it do one thing and only 
one thing and can you describe it without the use of conjunctive verbs (And 
Or)? Does it have a known set of input and a known set of outputs? Etc, etc.  

Oh, well. Off the soap box again.