Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
From: Robert Wagner (spamblocker-robert_at_wagner.net)
Date: 12/01/04
- Next message: Chuck Stevens: "Re: OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Richard: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Reply: Richard: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Lueko Willms: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Michael Wojcik: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Michael Wojcik: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:17:11 GMT
On 30 Nov 2004 05:17:58 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <bicoq0t5cphm7ib6gv8glpcjpmlj7qtgvl@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:21:40 GMT, "William M. Klein"
>><wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>On the other hand, IBM COBOL mainframe usage is still so wide-spread that I
>>>am perfectly willing to admit that almost everything that you report/claim
>>>must exist somewhere in some shop or shops, it is simply your
>>>generalizations that fail (consistently) a "reasonability" test - when
>>>compared to the experience of all other (currently involved with IBM
>>>mainframe environments) posters.
>>
>>I describe what I see, and encourage others to do the same. Facts are
>>more telling than opinions; code reveals more than narration.
>
>Mr Wagner, what one sees might have nothing to do with what are called
>'facts'; consider 'to one who has a hammer all problems tend to look like
>nails'.
Lemme see if I've got this right -- never mind so-called 'facts'?
>>Readers
>>will note the relative scarcity of good mainframe code posted here,
>>compared to OO and other non-mainframe.
>
>Readers may apply their own criteria for 'good' and they might come up
>with a quantification other than 'relative scarcity'... is
>
>IF PROGRAM-RUNS
> PERFORM NEXT-ASSIGNMENT
>ELSE
> PERFORM CODE-LIKE-HELL UNTIL DAMNED-THING-WORKS
Come on, Doc. You, of all people, know that would never pass muster at
a mainframe code review. They'd make you rewrite it:
PERFORM 60000-CODE-LIKE-HELL
THRU 60000-CODE-LIKE-HELL-EXIT
UNTIL PGM-STATUS = lt-00.
PERFORM 20000-NEXT-ASSIGNMENT
THRU 20000-NEXT-ASSIGNMENT-EXIT.
>... 'good mainframe code' or not... and if either, for what reason?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet, 1. 5
- Next message: Chuck Stevens: "Re: OT: demise of COBOL WAS: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Need help with REDEFINES (I think)...."
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Richard: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Reply: Richard: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Lueko Willms: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Michael Wojcik: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Maybe reply: Michael Wojcik: "Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|