Cobol - Para1 THRU Para2 (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

Author

Para1 THRU Para2 (was: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

William M. Klein

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:niqcp0die0leftc6jc4mr2705uekke0rl9@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:50:49 -0600, Peter Lacey
> <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
> Perform THRU -EXIT was invented because we didn't have EXIT PARAGRAPH.
> Under Micro Focus, which had EXIT PARAGRAPH for years, and all 2002
> compilers, THRU should be obsolete. Moreover, structured code has no
> need for premature exits.
>

Micro Focus has not yet implemented the full ISO 2002 Standard. Neither has
(IBM) mainframe compilers. They do not have an EXIT PARAGRAPH statement.
THEREFORE, (although I don't personally use it), the
Perform Para1 thru Para1-exit
*style* can be quite useful if you want to provide a "escape from within this
paragraph" structure. Furthermore, it "meets" the "single entry, single exit"
fundaamental philosophy of strucutred programm.

Again, but you have another facility, what is WRONG with this (as a stylse) for
those using a compiler without the EXIT PARAGRAPH syntax?

P.S. If you haven't ever done it, a "premature exit" can provide signigicant
run-time performance advantages - in some multi-hour batch jobs. When was the
last time you had to create or maintain such a program? If you haven't done so
recently, then don't speak about what is or isn't a "good style" for such
environments.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
..

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

In article <bivqp09nrocm1fe258j397lt5qp6vpor55@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

[snip]

>In racquetball, when my three-shots-ahead strategy goes astray, I hit
>a defensive shot to throw the opponent off his stratecy. Then we're
>both playing shot-by-shot. If I'm the better shot-maker, I play it
>out. If he is, I accidentally hit him with ball (in match play), which
>is a do-over.

'If he is (the better shot-maker), I accidentally hit him with ball'... Mr
Wagner, this speaks *volumes*.

DD

Jeff York

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <bivqp09nrocm1fe258j397lt5qp6vpor55@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>'If he is (the better shot-maker), I accidentally hit him with ball'... Mr
>Wagner, this speaks *volumes*.

Raquetball?? That's a game for little girls isn't it? A denatured
version of American-style Squash, which is itself a denatured version
of "proper" European / Asian Squash.. :-)

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Jeff York

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <fbsrp018t7as1jv2gu68ki959qlumhcrvg@4ax.com>,
>Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Mr York, my ignorance of various forms of Sport is such that I cannot
>answer; my response was to the tactic mentioned above which can applied to
>any sort of contest with rules by which the parties involved agree to
>participate.
>
>(Some, of course, may say that 'the only rule is that there is no rules'
>but this begs the question of why Mr Wagner uses a ball to strike his
>opponent instead of slipping him a shiv; if 'the only rule is 'Don't Get
>Caught'' then the question becomes why not cut the brake-lines of one's
>opponent's car the evening prior and win by default.)

Ah Doctor.. I, as a poncy Brit, merely assumed that the tactic
employed was simply the American / Vince Lombardi approach to sport -
"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser".. And my
incredulity re the sport itself and the tactics employed was... As if
hearing about an aggresive game of "cats cradle".. :-)

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

In article <bn2sp0pdtdijcak375iv0rl5b2og9hk8kd@4ax.com>,
Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Ah Doctor.. I, as a poncy Brit, merely assumed that the tactic
>employed was simply the American / Vince Lombardi approach to sport -
>"Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser"..

Please, not 'Doctor', jes' ol' Doc... and many Americans, while enamored
of victory - most I know of do not enter into situations with the
intention of losing - have been exposed to the sentiment of '... it's how
you play the game'.

>And my
>incredulity re the sport itself and the tactics employed was... As if
>hearing about an aggresive game of "cats cradle".. :-)

There are not too many objects in cat's cradle which attain the velocity
mentioned by Mr Wagner, at least in the variants of which I have any
knowledge.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-20, 3:55 am

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:14:48 +0000, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Raquetball?? That's a game for little girls isn't it? A denatured
>version of American-style Squash, which is itself a denatured version
>of "proper" European / Asian Squash.. :-)

Squash is the sissy game. It doesn't have ceiling shots nor kill shots
... a six-inch metal plate by the floor signals foul. It expects you to
play with a dead ball, a badminton racquet and nothing but passing
shots. No wonder all the champions are from India and Pakistan. I
hoped for better from the British.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-20, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-20, 3:55 pm

In article <7qnup0lqdin0d32bv6cnu9gr3c428k31br@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2004 08:22:55 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>The player in front is responsible for getting out of the way. If he
>gets hit too many times, he can be penalized for delay of game.

It might seem that if the player in front is busy tending to stab wounds
this penalty might be invoked, as well.

DD

Howard Brazee

2004-11-21, 3:55 am

On 15-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> That has been debated at great length .. not just for Cobol but other
> languages as well. Many say a properly structured program has no need
> for premature exits NOR for time-wasting tests in loop control.

Correct. But there are occasions where minimalist maintenance favors exiting a
paragraph rather than restructuring the existing program.

The best way to exit a paragraph this way is with an EXIT PARAGRAPH command, if
it is available.

Alternative ways include use of switches and GO TO PARAGRAPH-EXIT.

> What's wrong with it is program bloat. Practitioners PERFORM .. THRU
> -EXIT on every blasted paragraph, not just the minority (if any) that
> need an exit.

The philosophy behind this is that we can't predict which paragraphs will
eventually need maintenance requiring an early exit. By providing a standard,
they provide the maintenance programmers with an EXIT PARAGRAPH option.

That said - I dislike PERFORM THRU, and will be very glad when this argument
will be easily countered (when we have EXIT PARAGRAPH available).

> I've found that rewriting poorly structured programs gives an average
> speed increase of 50% .. across the board, not just in isolated cases.
> A small by-product of proper structuring is elimination of premature
> exits and redundant exception tests.

I've found that extensive changes to existing programs cost a lot here and now,
and nobody's willing to pay for speed increases unless it is to get a program
finished running before a deadline.

> "Playing shot by shot will get you in trouble. You've got to have an
> overall strategy to win." - Gary Player

I'm a golfer. While we plan our shots from the green back to the tee - when we
hit the ball into the woods, it is essential to take the shot we have right now
- forgetting what went on before. The only time we should try heroics is if
failure to hit this shot means losing (this occurs in match play some). In
medal play, we should take the safe play not dig a deeper hole for ourselves.

Jeff York

2004-11-21, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2004 13:51:50 -0800, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>I measured it. My rewrites did more than restructure programs, they
>restructured job streams as well. For example, three batch programs
>that copy a file and compute something might be changed into one main
>program that copies the file and three callable programs that do
>computations. Three reads and three writes were replaced by one read
>and one write.

With all due respect, that's absolutely *nothing* to do with
"programming style"... You've replaced an old or inefficient bit of
system design with something more efficient and gained a performance
increase in the process.

You're attempting to compare apples and bulldozers.

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jjy@jakfield.xu-netx.com (remove the x..x round u-net for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-21, 3:55 am

In article <419B97E8.DFF162AC@mb.sympatico.ca>,
Peter Lacey <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
> Well, your first statement (above) and this one aren't equivalent at
> all. But that isn't important. You're sold on naked PERFORM's; I can
> think of two very easy ways of coming to grief: performing the
> paragraphs in the wrong order, or omitting a paragraph perform.

Those errors exist in both p/t and p styles.

You could p/t in the wrong order, or you could locate them in the source
module in the wrong order.

You could also miss a necessary p/t.

I'm not sure that is a problem specific to p-only.

> You will properly object that a competent programmer will only rarely
> make such a mistake. But surely you must consider that competent
> programmers will only rarely make a such mistake with their p/t's
> (thanks for the abbreviation).

I would think that, after testing, a competent programmer would never
make that mistake. Few would ever make a p/t mistake either.

But there are many incompetent programmers out there. That is why I'm
all for the compile catching as much as it possibly can.

> A lot of the people who rail against other programming styles take it
> for granted that the proponents of the other styles consistently make
> the most kindergarten-type mistakes and, what's more, never test their
> programs. That's what it looks like to me, anyway

I am certain that everyone subscribing to this forum could code decent
Cobol using any style. It is the maintenance of those programs that
would concern me.

My environment is one of constant maintenance -- a small, but
significent, part of our code base is altered monthly except for
December. Programs are written by development groups then handed over
to a support team for supervision and minor maintenance.

To compound matters -- minor maintenance tends to be a 3 am with
programmers that do not get to write a great deal of code (because the
major problems go back to development).

I have seen some very creative and interesting fixes, both dealing with
p/t and not. My general conclusions run along the lines of making the
code as simple as possible -- then try to get the compiler to catch teh
rest.

> (I had a VERY SHORT-LIVED bad habit of leaving
> object patches for trivial changes in the JCL instead of doing the
> source change); but then, now I think of it, this question wouldn't have
> arisen (late '60's thru the early '70's). So I can only say I don't
> think so.

Ahhhh, patch cards...those were the days.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-21, 3:55 am

On 19 Nov 2004 08:22:55 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>(Some, of course, may say that 'the only rule is that there is no rules'
>but this begs the question of why Mr Wagner uses a ball to strike his
>opponent instead of slipping him a shiv; if 'the only rule is 'Don't Get
>Caught'' then the question becomes why not cut the brake-lines of one's
>opponent's car the evening prior and win by default.)

In Category A tournament play, it is common to see the forward player
jump in the air and flex his knees just in time to let the ball pass
beneath. The move is a crowd pleaser. Spectators wonder how he knew
the ball was headed for his calves without looking. Simple, he knew
where the opponent was and heard the sound of the shot.

In Category C, where they put us old people, recreational players
don't have that acumen. They stand lumpen and let you hit them.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-21, 8:55 am

In article <6j50q01r1m80b7rvu8boe4954i0jrmg3mu@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2004 08:22:55 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>In Category C, where they put us old people, recreational players
>don't have that acumen. They stand lumpen and let you hit them.

Mr Wagner, I have no idea what the various gradings and shadings of
players are or might be; what is of note is your apparent disregard for
efficiency. If hitting a player with a ball is within the rules then
there is no need to do it 'accidentally'; if hitting a player with a ball
is a violation of the rules then why bother keeping any of them?

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-21, 8:55 pm

On 21 Nov 2004 04:19:42 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <6j50q01r1m80b7rvu8boe4954i0jrmg3mu@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Mr Wagner, I have no idea what the various gradings and shadings of
>players are or might be; what is of note is your apparent disregard for
>efficiency. If hitting a player with a ball is within the rules then
>there is no need to do it 'accidentally'; if hitting a player with a ball
>is a violation of the rules then why bother keeping any of them?

If racquetball were played like Cobol, most of the standard rules and
permissible shots WOULD be disallowed by shop standards. Ceiling shots
would be judged 'too complicated' for the average player. Kill shots
would be 'unfair'. The only permitted shots would be waist-high, down
the middle, not too hard .. and duplicated twenty times.

When squash players called it a game for non-athletes, our best
response would be that it survived since the '50s. A and B players
would move to more robust sports. Most remaining players would be
mediocre .. plus a fringe element trying to redefine the game with
racquet-like objects.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

In article <5jn1q0phj8qt5nv424mgmo0ah46f2158ml@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2004 04:19:42 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>If racquetball were played like Cobol, most of the standard rules and
>permissible shots WOULD be disallowed by shop standards.

If my grannie had wheels, Mr Wagner, she'da been a trolley-car; second
request, then: if hitting a player with a ball is within the rules then
there is no need to do it 'accidentally'; if hitting a player with a ball
is a violation of the rules then why bother keeping any of them?

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:57:22 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:niqcp0die0leftc6jc4mr2705uekke0rl9@
4ax.com...

>
>Micro Focus has not yet implemented the full ISO 2002 Standard.

There are nearly an infinite number of things Micro Focus has not
done. Absence of those things is irrelevant. What they HAVE done is
provided EXIT PARAGRAPH.

> Neither has (IBM) mainframe compilers. They do not have an EXIT PARAGRAPH statement.

True, IBM does not.

>THEREFORE, (although I don't personally use it), the
> Perform Para1 thru Para1-exit
>*style* can be quite useful if you want to provide a "escape from within this
>paragraph" structure. Furthermore, it "meets" the "single entry, single exit"
>fundamental philosophy of strucutred program.

That has been debated at great length .. not just for Cobol but other
languages as well. Many say a properly structured program has no need
for premature exits NOR for time-wasting tests in loop control.

>Again, but you have another facility, what is WRONG with this (as a stylse) for
>those using a compiler without the EXIT PARAGRAPH syntax?

What's wrong with it is program bloat. Practitioners PERFORM .. THRU
-EXIT on every blasted paragraph, not just the minority (if any) that
need an exit.

>P.S. If you haven't ever done it, a "premature exit" can provide signigicant
>run-time performance advantages - in some multi-hour batch jobs. When was the
>last time you had to create or maintain such a program? If you haven't done so
>recently, then don't speak about what is or isn't a "good style" for such
>environments.

I've found that rewriting poorly structured programs gives an average
speed increase of 50% .. across the board, not just in isolated cases.
A small by-product of proper structuring is elimination of premature
exits and redundant exception tests.

"Playing shot by shot will get you in trouble. You've got to have an
overall strategy to win." - Gary Player

Peter Lacey

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>
>
> What's wrong with it is program bloat. Practitioners PERFORM .. THRU
> -EXIT on every blasted paragraph, not just the minority (if any) that
> need an exit.
>
Practioners likely do this to avoid the possibility of coding

PERFORM xxx.

when they should code

PERFORM xxx THRU xxx-exit.

Either you NEVER use THRU or you ALWAYS use THRU. Either way you'll
never have that particular logic fault.

PL

Peter Lacey

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

Joe Zitzelberger wrote:
>
>
>
> If you NEVER use THRU, the error is impossible.
>
> If you always use it there are plenty of holes that you can fall into --
> the famed 'cut & paste' error is my favorite:
>
> PERFORM 1000-ABCD THRU 2000-EXIT
> PERFORM 2000-WXYZ THRU 2000-EXIT
> ...

Very well, let me be specific and explain how >>I<< do it, using a
method which has never failed me.

I always use numeric-prefixed paragraphs and section names (section
names only for SORT input & output procedures). The numeric prefixes
are unique and in strictly ascending order. Usually they are four
digits but sometimes three (but NOT in the same program. Either/or).
My PERFORMS look like this:

PERFORM mnxx-something THRU mnyy-EXIT
or
PERFORM mnx-something THRU mny-exit.

There have been a very few cases when I've had to violate this when
using 3-digit prefixes, when I had too much going on in the performed
range. VERY few. Maybe 20 in 30 years. In practice, usually the first
three digits of the four-digit prefixes are the same for a given
PERFORM.

So it isn't as if there's much room to make a mistake when I'm coding,
since for each new perform range I simply increment the mn by 1 or 5 or
20. I >>NEVER<< PERFORM any paragraphs inside a PERFORM range
(sometimes referred to as "pathological PERFORM's, with reason). If
logically two or more ranges COULD be performed in one statement - as in
Joe's first line above - I don't: I PERFORM each range explicitly and
individually (and of course in the correct order!).

It always works.

(If somebody working on one of my programs cuts and pastes across a
range then it's their problem, not mine. As I always use copious
comments, they would have to be fairly stubborn and unobservant to do
that anyway).

> THRU is nothing but an extra point of possible failure.

If you remove the "nothing but" then you are correct. If you insist on
leaving it in, you're wrong. However, if a statement mustn't be used
because it's a source of possible failures, then we aren't going to have
very much left to work with, are we?

PL

Howard Brazee

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

On 16-Nov-2004, Peter Lacey <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I always use numeric-prefixed paragraphs and section names (section
> names only for SORT input & output procedures).

Does your compiler still require SORT input & output procedures to be sections?

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

In article <419A494A.D22CE3BA@mb.sympatico.ca>,
Peter Lacey <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

[snip]

>I always use numeric-prefixed paragraphs and section names (section
>names only for SORT input & output procedures). The numeric prefixes
>are unique and in strictly ascending order. Usually they are four
>digits but sometimes three (but NOT in the same program. Either/or).

Ahhhhh... space aliens have been stealing my brainwaves and putting them
into your head, Mr Lacey; permit me to expound.

There's a paragraph in a program I was given to modify that does
subtractions given certain conditions; its name is, appropriately enough,
9711-SUBTRACT-HRS. As with your practise, all numeric prefices are
ascending and there are no backwards-referring PERFORMs.

I was taught, lo, those many years ago, that a backwards-referring PERFORM
was not to be coded... why, I cannot remember, I think someone mentioned
that on a machine common in the early-mid 1960s a PEFORM which was issued
on a section of code that had been paged out might not get executed... or
something like that, a Tradition whose reasons for existence has long
since passed...

.... but whatever the reason I avoid coding backwards-referring PERFORMs,
it's just my style...

.... and the mods I've been asked to make are most readily resolved by
sticking in the middle of 9713-CALC-SUNDAY-DIFFERENTIAL (which follows, of
course, 9712-CALC-PARTTIME-BNFTS AND 9711-SUBTRACT-HRS) an... unsightly
PERFORM 9711-SUBTRACT-HRS THRU 9711-EX.

Gah... rather than indulge in this unsightliness I think I'll move around
a bit of code and do a few global replaces.

DD

Richard

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

Peter Lacey <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote

> I can
> think of two very easy ways of coming to grief: performing the
> paragraphs in the wrong order, or omitting a paragraph perform.

Those are no more nor less easy for me to do than for you to do the
same.

Well, actually, there may be no clue in the code with a THRU as to
which order is correct. If one were to PERFORM A THRU D and the
paragraphs were in the code as A C B D (or A B D C, or ...) there is
no way to determine what the original author's intent was. It may be
the 'right' order, or it may be a mistake. It may be that there is
also, somewhere, a PERFORM B THRU D and someone had taken the C out of
this range deliberately without realising that the other PERFORM
existed (a search for 'PERFORM B' showed no others).

In these cases specific PERFORM A, PERFORM B, PERFORM C, etc is quite
explicit as to order.

I may also, by mistake, type in 'THRU ~exit', but then a simple grep
will find that for me, or the compiler will complain that there is no
~exit. A mistake that omits 'THRU ~exit' is much harder to find
mechanically.

> You will properly object that a competent programmer will only rarely
> make such a mistake. But surely you must consider that competent
> programmers will only rarely make a such mistake with their p/t's
> (thanks for the abbreviation).

I am certain that you are correct in that. If you had made such
mistakes then you would put in place mechanisms, mental or mechanical,
that would compensate for that and alert you even before they
occurred. I have no doubts that you can glance at a page of code and
recognise instantly where a THRU was missing, you will have trained
yourself to do that, even if it wasn't done deliberately. You are
also probably quite idiomatic (which is not an insult) in the way that
you construct the names and layout so the structure is much more
easily seen and mistakes would stand out - to those that recognise the
idiom.

> A lot of the people who rail against other programming styles take it
> for granted that the proponents of the other styles consistently make
> the most kindergarten-type mistakes

No. That is _not_ the argument at all. It is that the _next_
programmer, which might be me, will make the kindergarten-type
mistakes because they don't recognise the idiom, don't understand the
structure, haven't trained their brain to look for the patterns that
you lock onto.

Of course you may also make kindergarten-type mistakes if you worked
in code that was not in any idiom that you were used to. If you had to
work on my programs you would probably find the results error prone
and difficult to work with. You could claim that your code would be
error free but mine creates errors.

One of the reasons for having site standards, which may include using
THRU, and only changing these slowly is so that all programmers have
trained their brain to work the same way with the same idiom so they
don't make silly mistakes.

I have worked with many styles, and much awful code, some by amateurs
(managers who read a book and bought a computer). By analysing my
brain's response to the code, what it saw and what it did not see
automatically, I could understand what I needed to train it to do to
make my coding less error prone in those programs.

In doing so I could also work out what made coding less error prone
(for me).

> and, what's more, never test their programs.
> That's what it looks like to me, anyway

There are some things that the compiler and text searches can tell you
and some things that they cannot. As well as testing that the program
works correctly it is also necessary to test for those things that the
compiler cannot tell you. The less of those there are the better.

> So far as I can state (most of the programs that I've written have long
> since been swept away by the passage of time)

There may be a reason for that ;-)

Howard Brazee

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

On 21-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> If racquetball were played like Cobol, most of the standard rules and
> permissible shots WOULD be disallowed by shop standards. Ceiling shots
> would be judged 'too complicated' for the average player. Kill shots
> would be 'unfair'. The only permitted shots would be waist-high, down
> the middle, not too hard .. and duplicated twenty times.

CoBOL exists as a tool to achieve some goal. The standards you put down are
in how that tool should be used. You could compare then to standards in a
machine shop.

Racquetball is its own goal. The goal isn't to put the ball on the floor, we
can do that without dressing up. As with any game or sport, there are a bunch
of arbitrary rules that define what's being done.

Old standards stop me from picking up my golf ball, carrying it to the hole,
dropping it in, and claiming my ace. But what would I have accomplished?

When CoBOL becomes an end in itself, then it will make sense to compare it to a
game or sport.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

On 21 Nov 2004 20:14:10 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <5jn1q0phj8qt5nv424mgmo0ah46f2158ml@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>If my grannie had wheels, Mr Wagner, she'da been a trolley-car; second
>request, then: if hitting a player with a ball is within the rules then
>there is no need to do it 'accidentally'; if hitting a player with a ball
>is a violation of the rules then why bother keeping any of them?

In keeping with the custom here, I'll quote the applicable standard,
in this case from USRA.

Rule 3.14 DEAD-BALL HINDERS
A rally is replayed without penalty and the server resumes play at
first serve whenever a dead-ball hinder occurs. Also, see Rule 3.15
which describes conditions under which a hinder might be declared
avoidable and result in loss of the rally.

(a) Situations

2. Ball Hits Opponent. When an opponent is hit by a return shot in
flight, it is a dead-ball hinder. If the opponent is struck by a ball
which obviously did not have the velocity or direction to reach the
front wall, it is not a hinder, and the player who hit the ball will
lose the rally. A player who has been hit by the ball can stop play
and make the call though the call must be made immediately and
acknowledged by the referee. Note this interference may, under certain
conditions, be declared an avoidable hinder. See Rule 3.15.

Rule 3.15 AVOIDABLE HINDERS
An avoidable hinder results in the loss of the rally. An avoidable
hinder does not necessarily have to be an intentional act. Dead-ball
hinders are described in Rule 3.14. Any of the following results in an
avoidable hinder:

(a) Failure to Move. A player does not move sufficiently to allow an
opponent a shot straight to the front wall as well as a cross-court
shot which is a shot directly to the front wall at an angle that would
cause the ball to rebound directly to the rear corner farthest from
the player hitting the ball. Also when a player moves in such a
direction that it prevents an opponent from taking either of these
shots.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

In article <ib74q0pt0iqdgito6dgr9336d1io6834c6@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 21 Nov 2004 20:14:10 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>In keeping with the custom here, I'll quote the applicable standard,
>in this case from USRA.
>
>Rule 3.14 DEAD-BALL HINDERS

As in keeping with your previous posts, Mr Wagner, you've not addressed
the question. Third and final time, then: if hitting a player with a ball
is within the rules then there is no need to do it 'accidentally'; if
hitting a player with a ball is a violation of the rules then why bother
keeping any of them?

DD

Jeff York

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

In article <fbsrp018t7as1jv2gu68ki959qlumhcrvg@4ax.com>,
Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Raquetball?? That's a game for little girls isn't it? A denatured
>version of American-style Squash, which is itself a denatured version
>of "proper" European / Asian Squash.. :-)

Mr York, my ignorance of various forms of Sport is such that I cannot
answer; my response was to the tactic mentioned above which can applied to
any sort of contest with rules by which the parties involved agree to
participate.

(Some, of course, may say that 'the only rule is that there is no rules'
but this begs the question of why Mr Wagner uses a ball to strike his
opponent instead of slipping him a shiv; if 'the only rule is 'Don't Get
Caught'' then the question becomes why not cut the brake-lines of one's
opponent's car the evening prior and win by default.)

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:01:58 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>
>On 21-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>CoBOL exists as a tool to achieve some goal. The standards you put down are
>in how that tool should be used.

If there is one way that Cobol 'should' be used for typical business
systems, one would expect most shops to have similar rules. Yet, you
say the places where you worked were more enlightened than most.

You can't have it both ways. Either there's One Right Way or some
shops are in the dark ages.

>When CoBOL becomes an end in itself, then it will make sense to compare it to a
>game or sport.

Business IS a competitive game. Companies that use computers more
creatively or efficiently or imbue them with better quality stand a
better chance of winning. That's why CEOs buy into concepts like Six
Sigma and CMM. Hint: try thinking like a CEO rather than like a
programmer.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

On 22 Nov 2004 12:41:46 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <ib74q0pt0iqdgito6dgr9336d1io6834c6@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>As in keeping with your previous posts, Mr Wagner, you've not addressed
>the question. Third and final time, then: if hitting a player with a ball
>is within the rules then there is no need to do it 'accidentally'; if
>hitting a player with a ball is a violation of the rules then why bother
>keeping any of them?

Hitting one's opponent is within the rules and fairly common in
tournament play. Doing so in recreational play is considered
unsportsmanlike. There is a chance a player unaccustomed to tournament
style might become

and retaliate, so it's better to make the hit
appear accidental. Against experienced A players, there's no need to
'play nice'.

Getting hit by a ball moving 150 mph can turn an entire leg black and
blue.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

In article <6pu4q0l059hb9novcteehnsj6ur443m8ql@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2004 12:41:46 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Hitting one's opponent is within the rules and fairly common in
>tournament play. Doing so in recreational play is considered
>unsportsmanlike.

Now it is clear.

>There is a chance a player unaccustomed to tournament
>style might become

and retaliate, so it's better to make the hit
>appear accidental.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, Mr Wagner... such behavior speaks
volumes about the one who indulges in it.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-23, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee

2004-11-23, 3:55 pm

On 22-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
> If there is one way that Cobol 'should' be used for typical business
> systems, one would expect most shops to have similar rules.

If there was such a thing as a "typical business", then there would be no need
for in-house shops. Buy the software off the shelf.

> Yet, you say the places where you worked were more enlightened than most.

Not quite. You described mainframe shops. My experience is limited to a
dozen or two shops that are considerably different from your descriptions. I
am not claiming that my shops are more enlightened than most, only that they are
different from what you describe.

> You can't have it both ways. Either there's One Right Way or some
> shops are in the dark ages.

I'm sure you meant the opposite of what you said. If there is One Right Way,
then heretic shops are in the dark ages. If shops have different needs, then
obviously there isn't One Right Way.

Obviously you believe in One Right Way, with mainframe shops in the dark ages.

I don't.

>
> Business IS a competitive game. Companies that use computers more
> creatively or efficiently or imbue them with better quality stand a
> better chance of winning. That's why CEOs buy into concepts like Six
> Sigma and CMM. Hint: try thinking like a CEO rather than like a
> programmer.

The CEO doesn't care about CoBOL styles. CoBOL is just a tool. The CEO has
different goals, and no interest at all in playing CoBOL games.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-23, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-24, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-11-25, 3:55 am

On 22 Nov 2004 20:25:09 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
>Now it is clear.
>
>
>As mentioned earlier in the thread, Mr Wagner... such behavior speaks
>volumes about the one who indulges in it.

I thought it bespoke manners. Some players try to terrorize with
extreme aggression.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-25, 3:55 am

In article <6udaq0h9tmv2dgb0886l7an0s84db7oha4@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2004 20:25:09 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I thought it bespoke manners. Some players try to terrorize with
>extreme aggression.

Some programmers, Mr Wagner, confuse a preference towards a given style
with an indication of competence... and others realise that calling in the
activities of Other Folks to justify one's behaviors is a Brooklyn Bridge
defense.

DD

Robert Wagner

2004-11-25, 3:55 am

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:48:46 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On 22-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>If there was such a thing as a "typical business", then there would be no need
>for in-house shops. Buy the software off the shelf.

That's what 100,000 shops have done. They are buying ERP solutions at
the rate of $25B per year, with 10% annual growth.

Microsoft would love to penetrate the high end of computers. It
studied acquiring Oracle last year, concluded there were too many
problems. We recently discussed the lack of benchmarks comparing IBM
mainframes to high-end servers. Here's one comparing an IBM z900 to a
Windows server costing 1/10 as much.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31738.html

Also, search for "mainframe migration alliance".
click the "report" link

>
>Not quite. You described mainframe shops. My experience is limited to a
>dozen or two shops that are considerably different from your descriptions. I
>am not claiming that my shops are more enlightened than most, only that they are
>different from what you describe.
>
>
>I'm sure you meant the opposite of what you said. If there is One Right Way,
>then heretic shops are in the dark ages. If shops have different needs, then
>obviously there isn't One Right Way.

They all need software that functions well, and can be
developed/maintained for a reasonable cost. The issue is now to
accomplish that. Some think the answer is clinging to a past that has
a good maintenance record but has been weak on development. A lot of
its maintenance was self-imposed busy-work such as recovering from
abends that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

>Obviously you believe in One Right Way, with mainframe shops in the dark ages.
>
>I don't.

I believe there are many right ways, and one widely practiced Wrong
Way. The Wrong Way has been in decline since the early '80s.

>
>The CEO doesn't care about CoBOL styles. CoBOL is just a tool. The CEO has
>different goals, and no interest at all in playing CoBOL games.

True, but his goals are converted to technical decisions as they
trickle down the hierarchy. If the CEO sets a tone of empowerment and
expectation, there is a high likelihood of concord between objective
and realization. If motivators are lacking or poorly communicated, the
result will be yesteryear's technology. In both cases, the leadership
that trickled down, or failed to, will be manifest in code.

Robert Wagner

2004-11-26, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-26, 3:55 pm

and retaliate, so it's better to make the hit
>appear accidental.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, Mr Wagner... such behavior speaks
volumes about the one who indulges in it.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-26, 8:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Sponsored Links