RE: No Subroutines (was Re: Debugging many subprocedures)

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Campin


> I agree. Truly wise. All kinds of discussions of this before. 
> Check the archives. My two cents again is that a subroutine 
> is just a computed goto. A subprocedure is a black box or can 
> be. You cannot encapsulate logic in a subroutine because you 
> cannot have local variables. Every time you call a 
> subroutine, you have to consider it's impact on the whole 
> program. Any variable you changed could have screwed up 
> something else. So on and so forth. Seriously, why would you 
> still want to us a subroutine anymore unless you absolutely 
> have to? Try to create a library of reusable code with 
> subroutines. What a mess.  
> 


Why does it have to be either/or? Subroutines within a procedure can be a
handy way of organizing your code.

Is it wisdom to throw away one's hammer just because a nail gun is now
available? 

Honestly, I don't understand why some people have such strong feelings about
these things. Subroutines are just another tool in your kit. They can be
used to your advantage, or abused; just like all of the rest of the tools in
your kit.

Regards,

John Taylor