Re: Who the bloody eff still codes CABEQ in this century?!?!?!?

It always surprises me to find that many (most?) shops don't have code review. Seems the only time code gets reviewed is when it breaks and someone other than the original programmer has to fix it!

As to coding standards - sadly most places don't have those either unless they have "adopted" whatever JDE or whoever used for their code. Needless to say that is rarely a good idea particularly when the coding standard was put in place 30+ years ago!


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Jul 24, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Gagorama? Lol. That's a new one.

Of course, everyone understands the OP was a rhetorical, head-desk rant,
right? I could not imagine IBM providing this "feature", although I was
intrigued when Jon said he suggested something similar when he was on the
compiler team.

I'll repeat what I said last week: "Frankly, though, if developers and code
reviewers can't discipline themselves to adhere to coding standards, there
are other problems that need to be addressed." Of course, we don't have
written standards here, so that is on our (admittedly low) priority list.

- Dan

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Barbara Morris <bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2017-07-19 3:33 PM, Dan wrote:

What are the chances we could get IBM / Barbara to get the compiler to
puke
on any of the CAB* opcodes? At a minimum, the compiler should post a
message requiring a reply to the question, "How many years before you
retire?" and, if the response is greater than 1, tell the user to drop the
bloody CAB* opcodes and try again.

Without some option on the compile or H spec? Zero chance.

I wonder what the overlap is between people who still code CABEQ
(gagorama) and people who keep up with compiler changes enough that they'd
know about some new compile option to disallow using some old features.

My guess is (almost?) zero overlap.

I suppose there might be some dysfunctional shops where management wants
to set some coding rules and some of the programmers don't agree with those
rules. So the programmers would merrily code away with their CABEQ and
MHLZO, but the code wouldn't build for production because of being compiled
with the new option.

Wait. Those old opcodes are only available in fixed form. It's easy to
scan the opcode column for those. So I'd say there's also a zero chance
than IBM would add some option to disallow the use of those opcodes.

--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate link: http://amzn.to/2dEadiD