Re: pattern for an error

In article <IKk%j.872839$Gl5.737087@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
William M. Klein <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

In an IF statement that is terminated by END-IF. If you see the combination of
that type of GO TO (especially in CAPS and END-IF), the changes are medium-good
that you are looking at code that has been maintained (in the last 20
years) but
never really "upgraded" to current coding techniques.

Where is it... ahhhhh, wonderful thing, this Web... DejaNews... errrr,
Google Groups shows something from almost half of the aforementioned 20
years ago. Posted 19 Mar 1999, found at
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.rexx/msg/29d1b77320d7bfc7?dmode=source<

--begin quoted text:

Other may prefer programming languages with more modern
constructs.

Others may, sure... but let them *try* to get some code past a review and
implemented into Prod!

'What is *this* stuff? EVALUATE TRUE WHEN cond-1 imperative statement...
you call this COBOL?!?'

'Oh, please, Mr Standards-and-Practises Reviewmeister, it is exactly what
is allowed by the ANSI '85 Standard.'

'ANSI '85? Crap, I *knew* things were goin' ta hell in a handbasket when
we allowed them fancy ANSI '74 constructs in a couple a' years back...
look, 1985 is only 14 years ago, we oughta wait until the technology is
Really Proven before we implement it. Go back and rewrite this in *real*
COBOL, then try again.'

--end quoted text

Hmmmmm... come to think of it, the references go fill circle. From that
same posting, a few paragraphs earlier:

--begin quoted text:

You might mull things over before snipping yourself, DD. The TSO
and Rexx overhead is only paid once. Take a look at the "Address"
clause. Once we pass control to native S/390 object code, we run at
native S/390 object code speeds.

TSO and Rexx overhead is one thing.. IO algorithms are another. SyncSort,
for example, does things *much* more efficiently than, say, MVS BASIC and
I am assuming - rightfully or wrongly - that such a thing is at work when
IKJEFT01 moves faster than a COBOL program does. Both are doing the same
thing - READ an inrec, INSERT it into a table-row, all IO, nothing more -
so I conclude that the IO subroutines included into the LM generated by
HEWL from the object code generated by IKFCBL00/IGYCRCTL are less
efficient than those used by IKJEFT01... if this assumption or conclusion,
based as both most obviously are, in conjecture, ignorance and overall
cogitative sloth, are incorrect, then be so kind as to point out where the
error was generated.

--end quoted text

(notice the fancy-pantsed and newfangled use of HEWL instead of IEWL,
too!)

DD
.