Re: Cobol work?
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:46:29 +0000 (UTC)
In article <dl2j7l09u5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
>Obfuscated code is not really so different from, say,
>building a ship in a bottle.
With all due respect, Mr Wojcik, some might see this as a trivilisation of
the effects of 'obfuscated code'. My experience is limited, granted, but
I know of no situations where a failure of a ship in a bottle will cause
someone to get called at 2:am on a Sunday by an upset Ops crew screaming
that if said ship doesn't get fixed tens of thousands of people will not
receive their paychecks on time, if at all.
As much of a joy as coding might be it may be a Good Thing to keep in mind
that - insofar as business applications are concerned - the code is there
to run a business.
[snip]
>So in my opinion we need to temper demands for code clarity - though
>generally a good thing - with on the one hand the recognition that
>this can be carried further than is reasonable, and on the other
>that there are times when it has to yield to more pressing concerns.
Zounds... 'moderation in all things (including moderation)'? What a
stunningly new concept! As might have been said by... someone, someplace,
'The code should be as complex as it needs to be and not a whit more.'
DD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Re: Cobol work?
- References:
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Joe Zitzelberger
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Karl Kiesel
- Re: Cobol work?
- From: Michael Wojcik
- Re: Cobol work?
- Prev by Date: Re: Recursive Call
- Next by Date: Re: Cobol work?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cobol work?
- Next by thread: Re: Cobol work?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|