Re: Disassembler

From: "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:20:01 GMT

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4403301A.2400BA98@xxxxxxxxxx

Pete Dashwood wrote:

Ah, the joys of maintaining source... :-)

Don't start that again! It isn't every shop that has the luxury of no
inherited programs. Are you also saying that compiled objects never get
lost?????

Worse: The source code in the 'official, sacred, controlled' archive is NOT
the source code for the compiled program.

I think I'd rather start over than discover that the hard way. (again).

MCM

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: CG

References:
- Disassembler
  - From: Alistair
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: CG
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Peter Lacey
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Peter Lacey

Prev by Date: Re: Disassembler
Next by Date: Re: Disassembler
Previous by thread: Re: Disassembler
Next by thread: Re: Disassembler
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Disassembler
... inherited programs. ... Are you also saying that compiled objects never get ... The source code in the 'official, sacred, controlled' archive is ...
(comp.lang.cobol)
Re: Disassembler
... inherited programs. ... Are you also saying that compiled objects never get ... And, I have war stories to back it up from when, for example, a project manager insisted that a component was PL/I and had the source to 'prove it' BUT their production run-time library clearly showed that the code was an Assembler component with no resemblance to the expected logic. ...
(comp.lang.cobol)