Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !

In article <6ms2jsFido95U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ikbhg45qcfv8uut04l9o3gkfk9pulebu88@xxxxxxxxxx
On 29 Oct 2008 18:08:13 GMT, billg999@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

In article <747hg4965hgegcuojhe10um7ic1f5lnccg@xxxxxxx>,
Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I have seen

PERFORM AAA THRU AAA-EXIT.

AAA SECTION.
AAA-PARAGRAPH.
...
AAA-EXIT.
EXIT.


This was the norm for "Structured COBOL" ala Shelley & Cashman back when
I was taking classes in the late 70's. Most of the programming standards
I ran into required it (back when programming shops actually had
standards!)

What advantage is this in either performing AAA or PERFORM
AAA-PARAGRAPH THRU AAA-EXIT?

There is none.

Oh, aren't they just *darling*? They're discussing paragraphs and
sections again!


That's why you don't mix SECTIONs and Paragraph PERFORMS.

PERFORM AAA

...is less verbose than PERFORM AAA-PARAGRAPH THRU AAA-EXIT.

It also allows for less control of program flow and can, with ease,
increase unnecessary run-costs... but who cares about those? Concerns
over such things ended decades ago...

.... as should have certain discussions. It is obvious that Decent, Sane
and Good code requires every PERFORM of a PARA-GRAPH to be THRU its -EXIT
(with no intervening labels between them) and that GO TO be allowed only
for:

Returning execution of code to the first statement following the PERFORMed
paragraph

OR

Sending execution to the code to the -EXIT paragraph

OR

Sending execution to the 9999-ABEND-RTN so that the Ops crew will have
something to call you about when they get back in from smoking hashish.

Those whose concepts preclude these practises have clearly established
themselves to be what the Technically Inclined have been known to call
'poopie-heads'.

DD

.