Re: Disassembler

Michael Mattias wrote:
"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
Quite the contrary:
"The truth only exists in the code that goes
into production every night!"
I use this in virtually every presentation that I do. 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.

And, for very old code [We often see code that has not been compiled for 25 years or more.], if you do not know what the logic is, how do you propose to 'start over'? A fresh COBOL source program that, if recompiled, produces the exact results as the ancient executable is invaluable.

Maybe in your ideal world, you can start over. But [again], the real world is not that nice.
.

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 ... The source code in the 'official, sacred, controlled' archive is NOT ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)