On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:53:04 -0500, John McKown wrote: >On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:30 +0000, Ted MacNEIL wrote: > >>>IMO, most shops today fear any and all programmers who could >>>be considered >>>"above average", regardless of the language that they use. Why? >>>Because their code will be harder to understand than the simple >>>code written by less talented. >> >>I TOTALLY disagree with that statement! >>I've found that the most talented write the cleanest, most elegant, and >easiest to maintain code. >>They are smart/skilled enough to not use the obscure constructs. >> > >I agree and disagree with you. But, perhaps, it is due to what I have seen >written around here. Take a case in point. A programmer has two VSAM KSDS >files. He is reading one file sequentially and wants to see in the second >file has as associated record in it (both files are keyed identically). How >to do that? I will grant that in the past, this was a "no brainer". However, >this "normal" (perhaps sub-normal?) programmer did it the "easy" way. He >read the first file sequentially. Then, for each record read, he did a keyed >read of the second file. The second file contained about 5% of the number of >records in the first file. So 95% of the time, the keyed read got a "record >not found" and, as a plus, ended up with its buffers flushed and positioning >lost.
I agree with Ted on this one. Better programmers write better code. IMO, the example you cite here is not written by a superior programmer. It is written by a programmer who has difficulty understanding the basics. -- 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
