Home > Archive > Cobol > November 2004 > Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
|
|
| Robert Wagner 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| On 1 Nov 2004 18:30:07 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <r88do0hgoqarvib383eb5mr9i6dciheatv@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Mr Wagner, you seem to be constitutionally incapable of allowing for human
>ingenuity. Consider the following interchange:
>
>'Sorry, Prod Control won't allow this code... shop standards say that
>every PERFORM must be THRU an -EXIT; go back and re-write it.'
>
>'Don't you realise that the constructs which have been introduced since
>1985 render this obsolete?'
>
>'I realise that shop standards are shop standards and code that doesn't
>meet them won't get moved into Prod; go back and re-write it.'
>
>'Maybe it is time for the standards to change.'
>
>'Only people who can change the shop standards are the Standards
>Committee; now go back and re-write it.'
>
>'I'd like to present a case for this... when's the next time the committee meets?'
>
>'There isn't a Standards Committee, it was disbanded when we were bought
>out in '87... or maybe it was the '92 buyout, the guy who told me wasn't
>too sure; now go back and re-write it.'
Those standards go out the window when code is re-platformed to Unix.
Good programming is no longer prohibited for maintenance and new code.
Like big lizards, mainframe culture cannot survive environmental
change.
>
>Mr Wagner, nobody I know who has ever spent much time in a mainframe COBOL
>shop is unaware of this practise or loth to admit that it exists.
No one defends it here, or even mentions it.
| |
|
|
| William M. Klein 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| So you think that the coding STYLES are different on (IBM) mainframe shops
depending upon whether they used VSE or MVS? If not, then in what way did they
NOT select you for the assignments based on your "familiarity" with that
("old-style") programming style?
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:fiklo0l4ovkccg41rh3i1p3i33b11gao72@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:19:49 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> No. My 13 year-old experience had been on VSE and the like. If they'd
> been selective, they would have picked someone with MVS and ISPF.
| |
|
|
| Robert Wagner 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:19:49 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:sb8ko01iblpvmm2gu5p0oqch1jhngr4trh@
4ax.com...
[color=darkred]
>
>Could it be that you were hired to work at shops that MATCHED your experience?
>(because of your experience)
No. My 13 year-old experience had been on VSE and the like. If they'd
been selective, they would have picked someone with MVS and ISPF.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| On 2 Nov 2004 21:33:17 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <me5go0972uedud8erm7b167s0uathbevbk@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Then why bother to mention that 'It would also remove any defense of a
>'70s shop standard requiring that every paragraph to have an exit
>paragraph .. because it might want to exit prematurely.'?
Just in case someone advocates keeping old standards, the availability
of EXIT PERFORM discounts his argument.
>
>It seems that it will be prohibited as long as it ever has been, Mr
>Wagner.
Nineteen years? No way.
>
>Might you have something to support this assertion, Mr Wagner, or might it
>be discarded along with assertions about 'good programming'?
It is supported by my experience in mainframe shops and five former
mainframe shops ported to Unix.
>
>That seems a mid-stream switch, Mr Wagner; your first assertion was about
>'admissions', not defenses or mentions.
The first step to rehabilitation is acknowledging the problem.
Mainframers are still in denial.
|
|
|
|
|
s