Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:05:24 -0600
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Richard
<riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As soon as I changed to paragraphs only I immediately noticed that
there was almost nothing that needed checking. What I did
automatically and treated as a normal part of all programming simply
was not needed. This sped up my programming and resulted in less
testing and correction being required.
I agree completely.
Not counting required copymembers, the only argument for SECTIONS I
see these days as worthwhile are in shops that want to do minimal
maintenance changes and do not have EXIT PARAGRAPH available.
New programs don't need them, but sometimes getting out of a paragraph
without EXIT PARAGRAPH requires restructure or switches. I tend to
think switches can be worse than GOTOs.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
.
- References:
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Silfax
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: tlmfru
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: tlmfru
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Bill Gunshannon
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Howard Brazee
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Richard
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- From: Richard
- Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Prev by Date: Re: Layers, objects, and granularity
- Next by Date: Re: Cobol for Visual sutdio
- Previous by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Next by thread: Re: COBOL ain't quite dead - yet !
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|