Re: Matching Records - End Product

If all the people that know the cycle continue using the cycle, then you
will soon get something like what was was included in a section of the
company's CIO Newsletter 2007 that went out to thousands of employees
worldwide:

"The <project-name> project has been established in 2006 to developo a
successor for <package-name>. There are both business and technical
reasons to replace <package-name>. From a technical perspective, the age
of the application (some parts are 15 years old) and the programming
language (RPG) make maintenance and further development more and more
difficult/expensive. In addition to that, it is not possible to run the
application on other hardware than AS/400."

You guys can defend the cycle all you want, along with beta max and 8-track.

The code that was included with this note is not structured and not
logical. It is crap IMHO (pardon the language).

Glenn Gundermann
ggundermann@xxxxxx
(647) 272-3295

Agreed. It is structured and logical (not always the same thing).
Terri even got it right that the data from the secondary file (02) is
not available for comparison until the 02 record is read.

Writing Level Control Breaks may, as someone said, be "trivial", but
matching records is far from a trivial exercise. It would take far less
time for a newbie to grasp the concept of matching records than it would
take to re-write it. And I doubt that such re-write would be as
understandable. I used to work in a mixed Cobol / RPG shop. Any time
matching record processing was needed, we always wrote those in RPG
because it was simple, short, sweet, and understandable.


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