David,
My responses sprinkled below.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Another OS/390 to z/OS 1.4 migration question (COBOL)
On Thu, 2005-06-23 at 09:16 -0400, Thomas Conley wrote:
I bet you think that the BPX messages coming out of ISHELL are also
self-documenting.
Aw, c'mon Tom. There are some excellent decafs -- you should try one.
I've only had one 12oz Dew this morning. If anything I'm under medicated.
Yes, I am passionate about this issue because I have wasted countless hours
debugging problems related to so-called "self-documenting" error messages.
I find it amazing that the COBOL developers can thumb their nose at IBM
standards with impunity, and then I get ridiculed for pointing that out.
The COBOL messages *are* (for the most) self-documenting. I can't
offhand think of an instance when I couldn't figure out what one meant.
If your programmers don't understand COBOL compiler messages then maybe
they *should* consider another line of work -- or at least some remedial
training.
As I said earlier, the error message here involved DBCS processing, with
which the programmer was totally unfamiliar. You can't expect the
programmer to know about under- un- never-used features of a product.
That's like saying you need remedial training in TSO if you don't know how
to use TSO EDIT.
It is reasonable for the compiler developers to assume some level of
competence on the user's part; COBOL isn't a 4GL after all. And it
would be IMO a waste of time to have a tech writer produce something
like:
<snip>
IBM set the standard, not me. There are plenty of messages in every IBM
product that probably don't require further documentation, but that didn't
stop those developers from doing it anyway. COBOL should not be given a
pass in this area.
Above notwithstanding, I recognize that it is MUCH easier to get a RCF
accepted than an APAR, and if you *do* find a particular compiler error
message wanting then you're tied to the maintenance QA process.
Strangely enough, I was not the first to report this problem, but COBOL
didn't even bother to put out an II or DOC APAR.
Regards,
Tom Conley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
