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

> From: David Gibbs
> 
> 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.

"Better" is a pretty powerful phrase, Mr. Gibbs.  If a chunk of code has
no parameters, and affects only global variables like fields on the
screen, then how exactly is it better to wrap that chunk of code in a
procedure?  You have to add the begin and end procedure as well as the
rather redundant one-line prototype at the beginning of the code.  It
gets even more painful with /free, since you have to also add the /free
and /end-free, since the P and D specs aren't free-form.

And procedures can be misused most horribly.  One of the worst offenses
I see is procedure with a bunch of return opcodes strewn throughout it.
At least with a subroutine you can stick a breakpoint on the ENDSR and
know it will get there.


> 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'd say 95 times out of 100 I agree.  Yeah, that's probably right... I'd
say I write 20 procedures for every subroutine these days, maybe more.
But I still do use subroutines occasionally.


> 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.

I agree completely, when you use terms like "usually" and "not...NO
place".  It's when people get zealous and start trashing other people
because they use subroutines that my blood pressure rises. 

Joe