Re: COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)

In article <5lghicF83hgvU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fctv68$h53$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <LJidnU64f4e7-2_bnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx>,
donald tees <donaldtees@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

[snip]

This is one of the reasons I've coded

[snip]

... or reasonable facsimiles thereof. When data volume goes a certain
amount beyond program design then it's time to have a coder look at
it...
if only to say 'Oh, we're not limited to 32K tables any more, let's bump
this baby up a few!'.

Probably a good example for two reasons ... it shows a "semi-micro"
example that *is* within a program, yet is still an algorithmic
difference.

I think most such differences, though, take place well before you get
into the middle of a single program. They take place at the design level.

There's the rub, Mr Tees... at 'design level' one of my questions (if I'm
on-site for it or allowed to ask any) is 'what is the expected data
flow?'; I've heard - from Corner-Office Idiots, usually - 'That's a
goooood question... why do you think that is important?' and had to
explain that a system is designed using different criteria depending on
the amount of data running through it, just as one chooses a vehicle using
different criteria depending on the amount of stuff one wishes to move
around in it.

If the system gets used then the amount of data going through it may
increase... and, similarly to a vehicle, one will have to decide at which
point one puts aside the old three-speed Humber with handlebar-basket -
which was most suitable for moving one'sself around during one's earlier
years - and replaces it with a vehicle which can carry one'sself, one's
spouse and (n) children... perhaps a motorscooter (which in some places,
eg Southeast Asian countries, are made to carry all that and more),
perhaps an automobile of some sort, perhaps a van, etc.


Computer systems, not being modes of transport, can be designed generically
from day one and expanded as the need arises without necessarily having to
make major code changes. It's called "scalability".

Computer systems, in that they move data about, are most certainly modes
of transport. Some quantities of data can be dealt with in a manner which
satisfies the needs and budgets of an organisation by an simple
file-editor, some by a spread***, some by a small database package and
some need full-blown Oracle or DB2 installations.

'Scalability' is not, I believe, a synonym for 'one solution fits all
situations'.

DD

.