I might put a comment on the LA, but it would be a why comment, e.g., "Load BXLE increment".
I believe in sensible structured programming but not in blind adherence to rigid dicta pompously handed down from on high. My mantra for the past half century has been "You have to carve the bird at the joints." I would have to see the code in context to decide whether that COBOL example was overkill. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Mike Hochee [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Coding for the future I suspect I'm a 'man overboard' on this one, but don't feel I need a life preserver. Having worked on some larger products with many many moving parts, and not of my own making, I would always welcome the use of Token_Len, and if it is being used to prime a register, no comment really needed. I'm good with the COBOL example as well, and might not even take note of potential overkill. At some point, so called structured programming, functional decomposition, re-usage, (maybe even 'elegance'), made their way into my brain and heart, so that they are now tightly bound up with my soul, and I never even knew it was happening! Powerful stuff! On the other hand, when my performance and efficiency identity asserts itself, the COBOL example would be a strong candidate for change, and I wouldn't think twice about it. Mike -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 12:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Coding for the future Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. Of course! But now let's say there's only one instance of TOKEN_LEN being referenced and it's highly unlikely to ever be changed. That's the case I'm talking about here - which I think happens far more often than fields that change their size over time. Sometimes people go a bit overboard coding for a future that never happens - that's what I'm trying to describe. One example: I remember looking at someone's COBOL source code that did a procedure call. That procedure was a single line that called another procedure. So off to another member, and all that final procedure did was a single MOVE statement. All this was to comply with structured programming methods designed to handle future changes that would likely never happen. On 6/17/2021 8:19 AM, Wayne Driscoll wrote: > Until the definition of a token changes such that the new length is 32 > instead of 5. Changing the one macro that defines TOKEN_LEN is much easier > than searching for all instances of LA Rx,5 and then determining if it is > process a TOKEN, or if the value is for some other reason. > > Wayne Driscoll > Rocket Software > Note - All opinions are strictly my own. > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Tom Brennan > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Coding for the future > > EXTERNAL EMAIL > > > > I'd actually rather read LA R7,5 so I don't have to hunt for where > Token_Len is defined. > > On 6/16/2021 3:24 PM, Charles Mills wrote: >> And if the instruction itself were >> >> LA R7,Token_Len >> >> Then it would be more clear and more maintainable. >> >> Charles >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson >> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 3:07 PM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Coding for the future >> >> Avoid embedding code specific details in comments. >> >> Init loop counter in R7 to 5 >> >> A comment should not name anything explicitly stated in the >> instruction. 'R7' in the comment is not merely redundant. If the loop >> register needs to be changed later on, then the comment will have to >> be updated also. If it's not updated, then it becomes misleading, >> perhaps worse than no comment at all. I would prefer >> >> LA R7,5 Prepare to search for delimiter >> >> >> >> . >> . >> J.O.Skip Robinson >> Southern California Edison Company >> Electric Dragon Team Paddler >> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >> 323-715-0595 Mobile >> 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf >> Of Mike Schwab >> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 2:17 PM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: (External):Re: EXTERNAL: Coding for the future >> >> *** EXTERNAL EMAIL - Use caution when opening links or attachments >> *** >> >> But what is Register 7 going to be used for, and why does it need a 5? >> I. E. Init loop counter in R7 to 5. >> >> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:48 AM Savor, Thomas >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >>> >>> ==> LA R7,5 Put 5 in register 7 >>> >>> It depends on the intended target audience. Now I and you know that a 5 is >>> put in Register 7, but many shops have only a couple Assembler >>> Programmers....but many more Cobol programmers. Telling "them" that a 5 is >>> put in Register 7 can be helpful to solving a problem or learning what a >>> program does. >>> >>> Way too many Cobol programmers that I run into are scared of looking at >>> Assembler...like just looking at it or trying to learn it is going to give >>> you Ebola...so even very basic instructions can be helpful...especially if >>> Instruction says LA 7,5 then it really helps "them". >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On >>> Behalf Of Seymour J Metz >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:58 AM >>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Coding for the future >>> >>> Long ago in a galaxy far away, they handed each of us a stack of manuals >>> and told use that we were all enrolled in a 7070 class and had to read all >>> of the manuals before the class started. It turned out that some of the >>> students were answering questions that stumped the instructor, and that if >>> you read the manuals you didn't need the course. >>> >>> The worst are the ones that score based on the quantity of comments instead >>> of their quality. That guaranties cluttered and unhelpful comments. People >>> will behave in such a fashion as to optimize how their organization ranks >>> them; if teir grades or performance reviews depend on doing something >>> sub-optimal, then that's what they'll do. Measure the things that actually >>> matter. >>> >>> I generally frown on marking students down on stylistic issues like >>> labels on separate lines, but I will mark down for >>> >>> LA R7,5 Put 5 in register 7 >>> >>> Don't tell me what LA does, tell me why you're putting that value in that >>> register. If there is nothing useful to say in the comment, then omit it. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmas >>> on<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F >>> mason> gmu.edu/~smetz3<http://gmu.edu/~smetz3> >>> &data=04%7C01%7Cthomas.savor%40fisglobal.com%7Cb >>> e99c6f1bde54085afe408d930df9961%7Ce3ff91d834c84b15a0b418910a6ac575%7 >>> C0 >>> %7C0%7C637594559179362403%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMD >>> Ai >>> LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=kaKO >>> h2 >>> 8RkIFxgof3dWR3QMgfWMAyZeQ8ijJ7XLqXpXE%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on >>> behalf of Phil Smith III [[email protected]] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 11:17 AM >>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Coding for the future >>> >>> Crawford, Robert C. wrote, in part: >>> >>>> Oh, and I used to this: >>> >>>> LOOP MVC HERE,THERE >>> >>> >>> >>>> And now do this: >>> >>>> LOOP DS 0H >>> >>>> MVC HERE,THERE >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, I was taught that early. Then I took a Commodore SuperPet >>> assembler class (after writing 370 assembler for several years). >>> That assembler had no >>> >>> DS 0H >>> but it did have >>> EQU * >>> So I used that-and was marked down for it. At that point, I stopped taking >>> the class seriously. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the >> message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> with the >> message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ================================ > Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries ■ 77 Fourth Avenue, Waltham MA > 02451 ■ Main Office Toll Free Number: +1 855.577.4323 Contact Customer > Support: https://my.rocketsoftware.com/RocketCommunity/RCEmailSupport > Unsubscribe from Marketing Messages/Manage Your Subscription > Preferences - > http://www.rocketsoftware.com/manage-your-email-preferences > Privacy Policy - > http://www.rocketsoftware.com/company/legal/privacy-policy > ================================ > > This communication and any attachments may contain confidential information > of Rocket Software, Inc. All unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Rocket > Software immediately and destroy all copies of this communication. Thank you. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
