Re: Disassembler

From: "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:48:25 +1300

"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5xGMf.38010$F_3.4082@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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

I agree. That's why I'm advocating NOT mantaining source code. It is a
highly error prone process that causes more harm than it heals...

Pete.

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Howard Brazee

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
- Re: Disassembler
  - From: Michael Mattias

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 ... 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)
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)