Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

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.

On  5-Nov-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

> I had difficulty finding the first project. Three unproductive ws
> passed at the height of the Y2K hiring frenzy, when others were
> finding projects within a w. So I added one line to my online
> resume: "Weakness: no experience with MVS." Within a w I got three
> offers to work on MVS. It seems keyword scanners don't understand
> semantics. :)

LOL!

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 t
hey
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.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:11:12 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>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?

People making hiring decisions don't know or care about style. Some
select by matching keywords between requirement and resume, some
assess 'soft skills' during a phone interview and some appear to
simply take the first names on the candidate list.

I had difficulty finding the first project. Three unproductive ws
passed at the height of the Y2K hiring frenzy, when others were
finding projects within a w. So I added one line to my online
resume: "Weakness: no experience with MVS." Within a w I got three
offers to work on MVS. It seems keyword scanners don't understand
semantics. :)

>
>--
>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:

>
>"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
> news:sb8ko01iblpvmm2gu5p0oqch1jhngr4trh@
4ax.com... 
 
>
>Could it be that you were hired to work at shops that MATCHED your experien
ce?
>(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.

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.