Documentation? Have you looked at most RPG programs ;-)

Interesting read though. I agree to a point, but I do think there is a time
when rewriting is the right move. I think procedural programming differs
from OO programming in the decision to a point as well. Procedural
programming for me is harder to read. Nested if statements with 50 lines
between the initial if/endif is hard to read no matter how well it's
documented. Stuff like that should be rewritten.

For an OO example if you have some kind of custom ORM solution, rewriting
for JPA makes more sense to me.

Also, if there is a GOTO anywhere in the program, rewrite the whole thing.
Okay, that's more of a joke, but that's how I feel when I see a GOTO. :-)

--
James R. Perkins


On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 14:10, Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen <ravn@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

Den 22/06/10 18.38, James Perkins skrev:
I kind of see the backwards compatibility as a blessing and a curse. It's
great things work, but it also leads to code that never really gets
looked
because it just works. I've seen code out there just about as old as I
am. A
lot of the code I end up having to working was written in the 80's and
90's.

Joel Spolsky puts it much better than I can:

" The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code
has been /used/. It has been /tested/. /Lots/ of bugs have been found,
and they've been /fixed/. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't
acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire,
baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just
sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of
gross if it's not made out of /all new material/?" --
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html (recommended
read).

I understand that you mean "change code" when you say "look at code".
That means you have to test and debug your changes, and document[1] them
which is actually quite a bit of work if you fiddle with critical stuff.

It is ok to do all that work if you HAVE to, but why do it otherwise?


[1] more or less :) In any case you can leave it more documented than
you found it.

--
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"

--
This is the Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio
Client for System i & iSeries (WDSCI-L) mailing list
To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/wdsci-l
or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/wdsci-l.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.