Not disagreeing with your main point, Matt. But to be fair, most of the problem is that NO ONE KNOWS where we'll be fifty years later. Betamax lost (mostly), so a lot of time and investment and material is wasted. Oh, well; that's how it works; you try things out.
I couldn't count the number of times I've ripped out a beautifully-conceived function, or method, or entire class, because during the creation of a complex tool I realized that it wasn't what I needed after all. Sure, I try to think ahead, and the more I do this I suppose the better I must be getting at it. But I expect I will always be writing code, then tearing it out and rewriting it from scratch. I can do that when I'm writing the whole thing myself; if I were writing classes for a team I suppose that wouldn't happen so often, because they'd get committed to an old design and want to keep it even if a new way would be better. Which is sort of what happened to JCL, though on a different scale. --- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* While we were borrowing from the customs of other lands, who was the idiot who passed up the siesta? */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Matt Hogstrom Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 07:45 I concur. The challenge as we all know is that technology evolves over time and is implemented in what we know and works versus where we’ll be fifty years later. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
