Re: Here's one problem

Pete Dashwood wrote:
Richard" <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:27a8a6fa-b635-4a91-9c46-aca2f937e9d6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 28, 9:19 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


You cannot enable the menu until you have viewed the Licence. (Actually, it
probably IS possible but not easy and not intended to be done that way...)



The problem that I see is that the menu and splash screen show up on
the page and the 'view licence' is 3 pages down with no link between
the two. A viewer will see that the menu doesn't work and simply think
that the site doesn't work.

IMHO it would be better if the menu worked but did different things.
So clicking 'download' put up a message 'read the licence and agree
first', rather than simply being broken.

[Pete]

Yep. Jeff made the same point. I agree. I'll fix it as soon as I can spare the time.


Because they may not want to download, (in which case there is no need for
them to ever read the Licence),
may have no intention of ever downloading,
and that would be forcing them to do something there is no necessity for
them to do. If I hid stuff untill they read the Licence I would be depriving
them of stuff I am very happy for them to look at. The design criterion
is:"Only make them do stuff when they have indicated they want to achieve a
certain result"


The implementation is 'I am broken until you work it out for
yourself'.



Unless you can tell me the exact sequence of what you did and what it said,
I can't really do much. As far as I know the process works.


That's now sounding like a support call. Asking a user to indicate the
exact sequence of what they did is usually not productive. They
probably can only remember half of what was done, and get the sequence
wrong.


Richard is right on the button, but I also accept that you can't follow
it up from the brief sequence I gave you; as an off-chance, thought just
maybe you 'might'..... Suggestion - delete me and my password from
your DB and when you signal that the whole thing is complete - including
Heidleberg/Hesleberg or whatever his bloody name was, I'll give it a
shot from point zero, and yes, I'll scribble down each step I take. (Of
course when we see something on the Web we presume it is working and
never think of doing an 'audit trail' to confirm cock-ups we may make).

Of course I don't make cock-ups, and as you already know, or should
know, to while away my dotage, as a hobby I design jet-engines for
airliners .........yeah.

Now why Heidleberg etc... You once had a cartoon for Gipetto - if I have
that right I can associate it. I immediately think of Pinocchio doing
his little dance routine for Stromboli :-

"I-ve........
Got no strings to hold me down,
da, da, da, da
.........."

[Pete]

Nevertheless, it is as far as I can go at the moment.


One thought - "too busy to change it right now". What was the object of
rushing this project to print, before you both were satisfied it was
functioning to your satisfaction ? "QA" as a reference sounds really
grand, until some of us used non-Microsoft browsers. Exclude me but as a
suggestion, I would have recommended at least four names from CLC to do
the initial testings for you - Richard, Michael M and Jerry; the fourth
I'd have to give a little further thought to.... perhaps Jeff or Charlie ?

The non-computer people have less trouble with software because they take
the time to read each screen, do not "expect" a certain behaviour, and just do what it says.


Well, I did read your screens and they seemed comprehensive, but perhaps
they could be paraphrased a bit, and from other suggestions (e.g.
Jeff's), could further be reduced based on a slightly different sequence
of button usage. (At the back of the comment - the sheer volumes we have
to absorb these days from reading newspapers and web sites - I'm washed
out, I deliberately try to reduce my intake).

I don't even like writing it, but some others must have had the same
thought; rushing the publication of a project that didn't totally work,
smoothly, given the environment options, it brings into question your
credibility - and we KNOW you are both competent programmers.

For Robert :

I haven't yet downloaded your COBOL program to take a look, but....
Remember the furore your 'Best practices' caused. Much of it was like a
red rag to a bull for Bill K and Chuck Stevens. So given your format,
what percentage of COBOL programmers do you think actually give a
picture of data items, WITHOUT a final period/full Stop ?

Bear in mind that Pete suggested this project was a two way street (1)
an example to COBOLERs of how to integrate to dotNet and, (2) The
'outside world', Java and the C-family etc., using it as a tool to
extract a COBOL copyfile and produce input for a DB. Leaving out those
periods could lead them up the wrong path, if they subsequently thought
they would like to dabble in COBOL.

Way back - your usage of Net Express Collections - you instantiated an
Ordered Collection and then added some 5,000 (or was it 50,000) elements
having done calculations on the data to go into the elements. Next step
you :-

invoke os-Collection "finalize"

but then proceeded to access the elements by their individual
identities. I took a deep breath and stopped at that point. What you did
was OK, because at the end STOP RUN gets rid of the whole shebang of
objects.

Now to 'Best Practices', any newbie to Net Express, or even a competent
N/E user gingerly making a move to OO could be terribly misled by what
you did. Particularly if STOP RUN is some way off in the future in an
Exit from your Master Menu program. They wont be aware, but you probably
are - those 5,000/50,000 elements left hanging are what are neatly
referred to as a Memory Leak.

single objects , fine :- invoke ThisSingleObject "finalize" returning
ThisSingleObject

Collections :- invoke ThisCollectioin "deepfinalize" returning
ThisCollection

Collections with 'Levels' :- invoke ThisCollection
"deepFinaliseWithDepth" using n
rturning ThisCollection

And one you didn't need to mention :-

invoke thisObject "reallydeepfinalize" returning
thisObject

(Never used it - but that last one is "if all else fails.....")

Still haven't got NE working, so above is from memory.

The specific point I'm making is whether it is a COBOLer or 'others'
looking at a COBOL source, they should be led down the path which is
generally considered to be the 'programmer standard'. For general
circulation - don't use neat tricks, not unless your source has a Caveat
covered by comments.

Never used it, but very vaguely aware of nested programs. What was the
reason to turn yours into a nested set of programs and the advantages. I
don't, (rather 'didn't') do 'Procedural' but am curious to know.


Jimmy

They wouldn't be called 'users' if they did that.


For most of us we don't do that. As a result, we often
experience frustration with modern software.


I avoid software that does not do what I tell it to do. In particular
"Microsoft knows best" Windows.

[Pete]

Yes, Richard... :-)

Thanks for your post.

Pete.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Declining Cobol job market
    ... Hey Pete - I have not been igoring writing a reply to you, ... pursuing Cobol jobs. ... A lot of COBOL programmers (and RPG programmers, ... I have seen nothing that makes me think Legacy programmers are better at ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: working storage values
    ... If the sequence numbers aren't ... reflective of any structural hierarchy then what is the point of them ... make it more maintainable for the new generation of programmers at the same ... I'm proud to have been a COBOL Programmer and I don't want the new ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: How competent are we?
    ... On Jul 7, 10:53 pm, "Pete Dashwood" ... COBOL evolved in an era when there was no computer science (or only very ... Here is a competency matrix which shows what most of the young programmers ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Heres one problem
    ... On Sep 28, 9:19 pm, "Pete Dashwood" ... exact sequence of what they did is usually not productive. ... I don't even like writing it, but some others must have had the same thought; rushing the publication of a project that didn't totally work, smoothly, given the environment options, it brings into question your credibility - and we KNOW you are both competent programmers. ... So given your format, what percentage of COBOL programmers do you think actually give a picture of data items, WITHOUT a final period/full Stop? ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Micro Focus - "new" Releases
    ... On Jul 26, 2:20 am, "Pete Dashwood" ... true in terms of workstation COBOL, but that is a declining market anyway. ... fragile market and they both seem intent on eroding support from the ... Some companys come to me and say that the must pay ober 15 Million? ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)