Re: Help! GO TO and PERFORM THRU!

In article <1172426711.739083.196360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Impy <Impy.McFerguson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

it. However, it appears our S&P manual states we are to use GO TOs,

Is it dated 1967 ?

** 2002 ** I think the mandate on the GO TO dates from, lol.



It should be obvious from posts made here over the last couple of
decades. Most have moved on, there isn't much left unsaid on the
subject of GOTO and PERFORM THRU.

I would say, however, that there is nothing wrong at all with a GOTO.
They are clear and precise. When you see one you know exactly what
will happen. The problem lies elsewhere entirely: at the labels that
must exist for them.



Lucky you!

If your shop standard mandates PERFORM THRU and GO TOs, you'll always have a
job.

We can't even find people for our existing openings for Cobol
Programmers, and many of the ones there are very near retirement age.
So my job is pretty secure, I think, lol. It's pretty much my job for
as long as I want it, I think I can handle it, still learning after a
couple of months, but I guess I 'look like a Cobol Programmer'.


http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=4&month=11&year=1997

I'm not sure they mandate the PERFORM THRU, but it is how I'm being
told how to code it. This is a brand spanking new report I'm writing
for an existing subsystem. And the mandate on the GOTO is from about 5
years ago I think.

Yes, I have been reading about this 'style war' for a couple of days
now, and I realize it's an old can of worms best left alone, or a
sleeping dog or something.

I can see a use for GO TOs in Cobol (if you're careful), and if you
keep the paragraphs neat and structured (and never have to change
things), it might not be too bad, but having been doing this for a
WHOLE 2 months, I might not *quite* have the experience or wisdom to
see the bigger picture.

My employer tends to keep their code pretty neat and tidy, but I
think the use of GO TO and PERFORM THRU is more of an inertia thing,
just keep doing it that way cause it ain't broken. But I don't know.

It will be interesting to see how it goes, I like it a lot and can't
wait to go to work in the mornings. Hopefully, it will stay that way.

Thanks all!






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help! GO TO and PERFORM THRU!
    ... I would say, however, that there is nothing wrong at all with a GOTO. ... We can't even find people for our existing openings for Cobol ... Programmers, and many of the ones there are very near retirement age. ... I'm not sure they mandate the PERFORM THRU, but it is how I'm being ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: COBOL aint quite dead - yet !
    ... "Cobol went beyond goto-less programming 20 years ago" is too generalized. ... settled in a decisive sense - i.e, ... leads to an inescapable conclusion. ... same function but wasn't called a GOTO. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Question about Class Helpers
    ... | COBOL my frind - COBOL. ... if not valid1 then exit; ... We were discussing the very 'religioness' of GOTO. ... => compiler generates a GOTO. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • "Goto statement considered superfluous" (was: If you were inventing C)
    ... I don't think GO TO in COBOL is inherently evil ... What is evil is not the existens of GOTO in COBOL, ... Sure, the hardware will know nothing else but jumps, but a 'High ... Level Language' should provide some abstraction from that hardware ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)