Re: Flow chart generators
- From: Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:22:32 -0600
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:45:22 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Well, admittedly, the Data Division is not self-documenting, but that can be
solved by the liberal application of COPY books.
Very good.
I was thinking about CoBOL's self-documenting characteristic.
All code in any? language can be documented. But the best
documentation is that which is up-to-date and trustworthy. This is
pretty obvious, but how many shops guarantee that text documentation
is trustworthy?
If we programmers have to document anyway, it is preferable to have
documentation tied to the code. Meaningful names doesn't take more
effort than comments. Designing code to be read isn't that hard.
Of course, if documentation isn't our thing, we can write cryptic,
disposable code.
--
"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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Documenting COBOL WAS: Re: Flow chart generators
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Documenting COBOL WAS: Re: Flow chart generators
- References:
- Flow chart generators
- From: Anthony Aquino
- Re: Flow chart generators
- From: HeyBub
- Re: Flow chart generators
- From: Pete Dashwood
- Re: Flow chart generators
- From: HeyBub
- Flow chart generators
- Prev by Date: Re: COBOL syntax
- Next by Date: Re: Cyrillic characters
- Previous by thread: Re: Flow chart generators
- Next by thread: Documenting COBOL WAS: Re: Flow chart generators
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|