Shmuel: A couple of things. 1. Yes I used to wade though some of the posts and decided they weren't worth the time next time I saw one to do so. 2. You first statement comes under opinion. I will leave it as that. I was expressing an opinion as did you. 3. As to the manual I referenced I spent a week on the damn book and all I got was headache . I do not remember ever seeing such a complex document come out of IBM before this one. Even the migration guides for the different OS's weren't that complex. Now if you want to talk about the complexity of OS level's it is getting better (thanks IBM) but the cobol conversion book takes the cake it is overly complex and so dry I think that you could use the desert as competition. I had a chance to go through it again *BRIEFLY* this afternoon and I found it overly complex and similar to some of the discussion on here. We are a technical area and the discussion can get obtuse at times and we have to remember to keep it simple stupid (KISS for short).Once in a while I agree the discussion is worthwhile but more times than not a "NO" or a "YES" does not add to the discussion. One the other hand 3 pages is just plain overkill. A simple URL would have suficed or if its original a note saying see my submission on xx/xx/xxxx at 3pm would have been best, in my opinion.
Ed ________________________________ From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 7:53:13 AM Subject: Re: Aw: Re: non-module-PDS and VLF In <[email protected]>, on 05/15/2011 at 09:47 PM, Ed Gould <[email protected]> said: >People write in whole complete sentences for a complete thought >to be conveyed. Some people do, sometimes. Some people sometimes write perfectly understandable sentence fragments. >Take as an example (sorry do not >have the number off the top of my head). I believe its called the >MVS COBOL conversion guide (or something close) is close to what I >am trying to convey here. They manage to take a simple statement >and turn into a legalize length document that you truly have to be >a lawyer to understand. If you didn't understand it, how do you know that it is equivalent to a simple statement? I agree that there is verbose text in some manuals, but there are also cases where what the text describes is complex and a shorter description would be flat wrong. >Some of the replies on here are a lot like that. Certainly. But have you correctly determined which are which? I'd rather wade through complex text than make a programming error as the result of believing an overly simplistic post. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
