On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:39:32 -0500, Guy Gardoit wrote: >On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Roach, Dennis wrote: >> >> Bottom line - *it is the programmers responsibility initialize storage as >> needed.* Changes in LE have bit us in C++ and PL/I code in this area in >> the past.
Of course, along with many other things. > >For the life of me, I can't understand why this is such a surprise or >problem. How many bad programmers were-there/are-there anyway? > >Sorry, but one who breaks the rules, end ups broken. Programs rarely do exactly what is expected of them when they are first written. That is the purpose of testing. The traps that Ed is advocating are just another part of testing. The fact is that until code is tested, you can never be certain what it will do. When it comes to correctness of code, my vote doesn't count. Your vote doesn't count. Only one vote counts, and that is the computer's. When I first got started in this business in 1970 as an applications programmer, my boss had nearly everyone complete a "training program" before they startred on real work. As far as I know, I was the only one who was not given that assignment, so I can't provide details about the assignment. I do know that it involved card input and that the data on the cards was to be validated and processed. When the new programmer thought that the program was finished, the boss would give them an object deck to use as input. Errors in code do not, IMO, mean that the programmer is a bad programmer. *Every* significant program was written with errors. That is why we test. Thorough testing is not easy, but it is important. To single out this one class of error as inexcusable or bad programming is absurd. That's my opinion. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
