Re: Chalk one up for "The Cycle"

Last night, while sipping a mint julep on my deck, I got to thinking about the "non-cycle is more logical, intuitive." I have to agree with the statement, though I occasionally write cycle programs in ILE RPG (even with subprocedures - how sick is that?).


But, then, I remembered subfile programs. Though I write subfile programs, no one has (yet) been able to convince me that subfiles are "easy and intuitive" to understand. On the other hand I wrote subfile programs on the /36. Since the /36 doesn't have the built-in (cycle-like?) subfile stuff, everything (and I mean everything) had to be coded in the routines.

As much of a pain as subfiles are to program (or maybe it's just me), I haven't heard (and don't expect to hear) anyone wanting to code subfiles outside the built in system logic and handling. I no longer write subfiles "manually;" that would be pretty masochistic.


* Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i5/iSeries Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
615.995.7024
fax
615.995.1201
email
jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Mark Villa wrote:

I like the film industry analogy *much* better than the one I was
going to use, my spark plug wrench. Don't use it often but it's there
when needed and is the best tool for the job.

The cycle? Yes, just tell the newbies to think of it like "the
original 4GL" = some of the work is automated. They won't have to
crack a book.
And that the only problem with the language and utility is that MS did
not market it.

Putting SQL in production is more complex to QA IMHO. But when
considering multi-platform development it is obviously the preference
between these two.

It is when the rogue programmer _decides on their own_ to use something

different that they cause problems. <<

<<-- I bet this rarely happens in the real world. lol


Mark