On Jul 31, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In <[email protected]>, on 07/30/2013
at 03:01 PM, Ed Gould <[email protected]> said:
That is true but the outlawing of alter goto's have been written in
stone for decades.
At some shops, but I've seen messages here from people at shops where
they are required to use the old unstructured constructs rather than
the newer structured constructs.
Programmers HATE altered GOTO's as they are a bear to debug, just
like BC 0,somewhere
Its a hint that its going to altered and its really hit or miss if
the alter is something like MVI label+5,X'F0' (or even worse some
other combination ).
Even when its well documented when debugging with TEST trying to
figure out (with or without a listing) how you got to that point.
It might be smart programming but the debugging can (and is) a PITA.
I am and always been for outlawing parts of COBOL that should not
have been allowed in the first place.
How do you feel about shops that mandate the use of parts of COBOL
that should not have been allowed in the first place?
I shake my head and tell management that something like ready trace
should never be allowed in production.
And if they don't agree when it is time for a CPU upgrade I simply
remind them this is part of the cost so either eliminate it or eat
the cost.
Ed
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
