RE: Are subroutines codependent?

["Briggs, Trevor (TBriggs2)" <TBriggs2@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Surely this is just due to poor practices. There are two types of
subprocedures - those that have a "generic" purpose and can be
"recycled" - these should be named appropriately and incorporated into
appropriately-named service programs - and those of "specific" purpose
useful only to the program in which they appear - and if you're not
working on that program you don't care about them.

Trevor Briggs
Analyst/Programmer
Lincare, Inc.
(727) 431-1246
TBriggs2@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: RPG400-L [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Booth
Martin
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 7:32 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)
Subject: Re: Are subroutines codependent?

The issue, for me, is cataloging, finding, and understanding the 
intended purpose of procedures.  After the first hundred procedures, 
written by a dozen or mor programmers over  8 years and more, the 
recycling idea becomes unwieldy and unpredictable.

I like the concept.  Still, my bet is that problems of properly using 
procedures is embarrassingly more common than we will admit to
ourselves.


On 7/7/2014 12:05 PM, Michael Ryan wrote:
> Vern -
>
> Lots of modern stuff isn't better...that's for sure. Like moi! As old
as
> can be.
>
> Procedures can be of service...programs! :)
>
> Reduce...your complexity. Reuse....your procedures. Recycle...your
logic.
>