Re: Classic RW (was: Rounding errors

Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote

> We all were. Some of us left the culture when it became practical to
> do so.

I never found that it was a 'culture'.  It was just programming. In
the late 70s I moved between hangers full of mainframes to the new
8080 CP/M things and Unix in between.

> Hopefully, decision makers will p in and learn how to save money,
> make systems more reliable and programmers less cynical.

Here ?  Don't be silly.

> Professional programmers should know basics, like how to manage a
> list.

> Java syntax was copied from C++. Java solved the problem of
> distributing software to multiple platforms.

Java does more than that.  For a start it dumps pointers to move to a
higher level language.

> Namespace pollution isn't as bad as the mess created by mangling.
> Cobol can have the same problems. I've worked on Cobol load modules
> that had 100 callable programs.

Actually ENTRY names are _in_addition_ to the program names, so there
is the _same_ problem, plus more problem.

> In 74, it was a 9x. I forgot they standardized it in New Cobol.

That's OK. No one can remember everything.  The problem was that when
it was pointed out that there was one you brought out your 'superior
tactical firepower' and continually denied that it existed, even
[mis-]quoted Fujitsu to 'prove' you were right.

Instead of accepting that the correction may be right and checking in
the manual, you simply continue to argue the misinformation.  You
mentioned the look of fear when you walked into a site, ....

> Besides, I just write:
> IF FILE-STATUS NOT EQUAL TO ZERO
>     DISPLAY 'Something is wrong ' FILE-STATUS
>    GO TO ABEND.

When testing a File Status code for success you should only check the
first character for being zero.  There are success codes that are not
'00'.

Your code also appears to be something from a 'mainframe culture' of
the 70s. This may be suitable where someone will be called in at 2am
to decipher what '9[' means. Modern systems require a more
sophisticated approach.