Re: working storage values

On Dec 16, 1:28 pm, docdw...@xxxxxxxxx () wrote:
In article <8731d51b-1604-4c2c-8413-e189158ac...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

Richard <rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:18 pm, docdw...@xxxxxxxxx () wrote:


To 'get the job done' can be accomplished without the least invocation or
use of Good Style, last I looked.

I didn't know that, but I bow to your superior experience with that

No need to rely on the experience of others, Mr Plinston... a bit of
mental exercise might be able to supply a bit of evidence. Good Style
can, say, includes datanames which reflect the content of the field; were
one to use a text editor that has not only search capabilities but global
replace ones it would be a trivial task to take a chunk of source and
change all Customer-Number to C001, Customer-Name to C002, Customer-Addr1
to C003, etc.

I am not sure why you would want to tediously change all those, one at
a time, manually, using a tool as crude as a text editor.

As long as the changes were global the program would still get the job
done... but, to many eyes, be a tad less legible, as well.

Yes, and is this example from one of your messages a result of this
editing, or is it supposed to represent your 'Good Style' ?


Or was it merely a parody of the 1960s ?

I find that the style that I use gets the job done more effectively,
most noticeably when projects need to be enhanced to meet new
requirements many years later.

As my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the angels! - said,
'Never use yourself as a comparative, you'll only be disappointed'.

But each to their own... after all, what you've found may be all that
there is to be found, right?

I don't know what your 'Good Style' is, perhaps someday you could post
a few lines that use it rather than the style you do post.

Mr Plinston, I've let competent coders decide which of the styles I've
posted in are considered Good and which aren't, if you want to read what
they have said you may, perhaps, learn something from it.

Is this indicating that a 'coder' (a rather archaic term from when
there was a strict hierarchy from analyst -> designer -> programmer ->
coder -> card punch operator, but perhaps it still exists in some
halls of cubicaled mazes), that chooses differently is, in your
opinion, less than competent ?

As I cannot tell which 'coders' that you may label 'competent' and
which you would not I could not distinguish between comments deciding
one way or another.

Yes you could, but I dislike 'EVALUATE TRUE'.

Such a sensitive soul... how you manage to get by is truly a Testament to
Human Strength.

It does not require any effort at all, I never see 'EVALUATE TRUE' so
it is of no concern.

A few examples have been posted here... but see above about 'what you've


There are different ways in many places, Mr Plinston, and I've seen a
few... it was mentioned a few times that our experiences might, possibly,
be different.

From what I have read before I would hazard a guess that most of your
'many places' were mainframe Cobol shops.

A careful reader, Mr Plinston, might have noticed that I made no claim to
having 'many places' and only to having seen 'a few'.

I stand corrected: your experience is that you have seen only a few
mainframe Cobol shops.