Predictably I suppose, recompilation gets my vote. The issues involved are technical and not management ones, and bureaucratizing them never helps.
Development takes some time, and linking the development version of a PL/I compiler to that in current production use is always a bad idea. It ensures that retrograde technology and performance will be wired into newly developed systems. (This may happen anyway, of course; the use of the best translator is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for high performance. That use can be, often is, perfunctory.) I am also suspicious of Jan Vanbrabant's esclusion of homologation from this discussion. The word is derived from the ancient Greek verb homologein, to approve, which becomes homologare, to agree, in fairly late Latin. (It has a special meaning in Scots law, where it is used to characterize a process of removing minor defects from contracts, the remediated versions of which are then given the force of law.) If, as I suspect, homologation here has to do with ensuring that a systems meets its functional specifications, it is relevant. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
