Re: Called Module with File Access - where to Close
- From: "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 08:42:10 -0700
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11dq1d1pganit74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> What's "awful" about ENTRY?
One thing about ENTRY is that it ties the architecture of the *program* to
the architecture of the *system*. ENTRY is not part of standard COBOL (be
it '68, '74, '85, '02 or even the current working draft for the '08
standard) and an application that is dependent on the presence of this
syntax will not compile in any environment *except* those that support this
particular vendor extension.
If one of the purposes of writing in COBOL in the first place is to provide
at least a modicum of portability to a variety of platforms that run COBOL,
tying an application design to a particular vendor extension goes contrary
to that purpose. It does not matter if the code is only going to be used
in a single operating environment, but some managers think in terms of
protecting their investment in home-grown software by limiting the vendor
extensions that may be used in its development.
-Chuck Stevens
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Called Module with File Access - where to Close
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Called Module with File Access - where to Close
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it always possible to write a COBOL program using only 1 sentence per paragraph?
- Next by Date: Re: Is it always possible to write a COBOL program using only 1 sentence per paragraph?
- Previous by thread: Re: Called Module with File Access - where to Close
- Next by thread: Re: Called Module with File Access - where to Close
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
