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

Joe Pluta wrote:
> A procedure is not a one-for-one replacement for a subroutine, just like
> SQL is not a one-for-one replacement for native I/O and Java is not a
> one-for-one replacement for RPG.  Each technology complements the other.
> There are places when subroutines work better than procedures.

I agree that a procedure is not a 1 for 1 replacement for a subroutine,
but I would argue that using procedures instead of subroutines makes a
program better.

Since I have gotten comfortable using procedures, I have not written a
single new subroutine.  Anytime I come to a situation where I might have
considered a subroutine, I always find that a procedure is a better
solution.

I'm not saying that there is NO place for subroutines ... I just think
that a procedure is usually a better choice for the overall health of a
program.

Obviously, the above is just my humble opinion.

david
who can now start using V5R1 capabilities of RPG ... and is just
chomping at the bit to use free form calc ('cept, of course, when I need
to MOVE stuff)