RE: Legacy question

In general though, if rules are hard-coded, the programmer has to
maintain them, while a table driven is maintained by the user.

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick DuVall
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 3:14 PM
To: 'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'
Subject: RE: Legacy question

        I Agree Buck.  For our internal systems, looking back at some
code I
wrote 20 years ago, it seems that careful use of hard coding is actually
easier to maintain than a set of inter-related tables - and the program
for
maintaining it is already there (wdsci/seu/whatever). Where some of my
more
recent table driven applications either require a considerable coding
effort
to write maintenance programs or become a 'what was that table name? And
which ones are related?' dig through docs/memory/code to determine, so
changes can be made.  I guess as usual there is no right answer except
what
works for your situation best...

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Buck
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 1:52 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Legacy question


I think that in general, vendors tend to be more interested in table 
driven systems than companies writing software for their own
consumption.
   --buck