Re: Continued CODE Issues

[Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tommy,

I'm with you (how strange, huh?) on SDA vs Code for display panels.  I 
tried Code for panels, but SDA just seemed easier.  Perhaps I didn't 
give it a fair chance.

But I do use Code for printer files.  I prefer externally described 
printer files, as opposed to program-described, and RLU is such a pain.  
I've had issues with Code when working on printer files, but never 
anything catastrophic, such as losing all of my work. 


        * 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>



Holden Tommy wrote:
> Personally (ducking the rocks) I still use SDA for all my display files.
> I tried CODE (and yes it works...) but from my opinion SDA is just
> better.  I'll give the new WDSC integrated one when it's a part of the
> basic package and performs at least as well as SDA (or better).  Plus at
> this time learning CODE for displays is going to be a waste of time
> since it's going the way of the dinosaur...stick with SDA and wait for
> it's replacement...again this is JMO!!!
>
> <puts on flame-retardant clothing> 
>
>
> Thanks,
> Tommy Holden
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Bill Barnes
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:13 PM
> To: wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [WDSCI-L] Continued CODE Issues
>
> I am really trying to use this product but keep running into road
> blocks.  The latest is that today I was designing a screen to replace
> one already being used.  I worked about 4 hours figuring out what fields
> needed to stay and which ones needed to be removed.  I had the first
> screen 2/3 done when I got a little message saying there was a problem
> with CODE and did I want to send the error report.  At that point
> everything went away.  Add that to my 4 hours lost yesterday comes t a
> full day of work into the bit bucket.  This is unacceptable in my
> estimation.  If and when IBM decides to let the riff raff use the NAI
> version of CODE I will try it on something small.  In direct
> contradiction to those that love it I would caution anyone contemplating
> using this tool to STAY AWAY, at least for now.  I am too old to be
> losing days.
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill Barnes
>
>