Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)

From: Robert Wagner (robert.deletethis_at_wagner.net)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:15:15 GMT

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40e519ed.583588217@news.optonline.net...
>> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> I write in a conversational style that assumes the reader will apply commonly
>> accepted qualifications in a spirit of good will. This forum would be less
>> interesting if I wrote in the formal 'all "i"s dotted' style of lawyers,
>> bureaucrats and scientists.
>>
>> All communication requires the sender and receiver to share a common
language,
>> which embraces more than lexicon and syntax (grammar), it also embraces
>culture.
>> When culture is omitted, intentionally or not, words can be interpreted to
>> unintended meanings.
>
>The COMMON language of C.L.C. is to distinguish between "universal truths"
>(about COBOL or otherwise) and those things that one knows are true in
>
> - some environments
> - all environments that the writer is aware of
>
>Once (if) you start making those distinctions, your posts will receive
>SIGNIFICANTLY better responses - and your perceived knowledge and credibility
>will be increased.

I've started qualifying my statements with 'I believe', 'in my experience', 'I
have never seen ...', etc. Doing so forces one to use first person pronouns,
which, outside CLC, are better avoided in discussions that aren't about the
person. To my taste, unnecessary references to himself make the writer sound
egotistical.

>There *ARE* universal truths about "COBOL" about "programming" etc. Many
>questions deserve answers that provide such.

Anything in the Standard is a "universal truth" about Cobol. On programming
style in general, I can't think of any assertion that would go unchallenged
here. GO TO, periods and numbered paragraphs all have their champions on CLC.

>There are also things (probably
>many more than for the former) that require answers that explain for what
>compiler or environment they are true.

I move between compilers and environments so frequently that I find it hard to
remember idiosyncracies. I find it simpler to restrict my Cobol to features that
work the same on compilers I'm likely to encounter -- Micro Focus, IBM, Fujitsu
and (formerly) Realia -- which all began life as IBM clones. Micro Focus has
since gone beyond IBM-compatibility to become the 'gold standard' of Cobol, IMO.
It's unlikely I'll ever again work on AcuCobol, RM, Kobol or Unisys, although I
have used them in the past. Thus, when an extension such as POINTER or GOBACK
works the same on MF, IBM and Fujitsu, that's a universal truth in my universe.
When a Standard-compliant(?) feature such as IF NUMERIC has tripped me up in the
past, that's a universal falsehood in my universe. I would advocate INSPECT ..
CONVERTING as a more reliable alternative. We recently saw here an example of
Class Test not working as expected, yet no one thought to recommend INSPECT as a
solution.

In short, I think we'd profit more from commonalities than from differences.
Rather than asking which compiler, I'd rather say 'this way will work on all
compilers' .. now hastily qualified with '(in my experience)'.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... >> believed that the universe came from a state of ... > to account for the red shift evidence that most of the galaxies are ... ANYONES god the day he,she or it is powerful enough to gets it ... out all around the globe and seemed to have a common experience ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... >> believed that the universe came from a state of ... > to account for the red shift evidence that most of the galaxies are ... ANYONES god the day he,she or it is powerful enough to gets it ... out all around the globe and seemed to have a common experience ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: What would science be like if intelligent design hadnt been a dishonest scam?
    ... If you want to talk about how the universe works you will need to ... 'Common knowledge' is a term that you made up and have not defined. ... randomness reflects the fact that in the event one or the other of the ... like the flip of a coin. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: If you were inventing CoBOL...
    ... *because* the Standard *requires* that a continued ... can cause serious problems for many Windows and Unix compilers. ... Which is most common - I would think ... > and my mainframe experience is over 25 years out-of-date. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Common --- question
    ... Been a while since I've used common much though. ... But compilers have to handle at least all the legal ... Aligning "everything" on 8-byte boundaries isn't going to work ... them to do common according to the standard or with decent performance. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)