Very good analogy and I agree with you.
-Original Message-
From: MAJ Programming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:06 AM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] Standards [was:OCONV Extraction Question - Good
Practice]
Standards vs Styles
Colin Stuart,
Forgive my bluntness - quit wasting time - Write your spec. That's the
challenge.
I agree with much of what you've each written, but unless you codify it
into some document of lasting value, we're not really going to remember
it past lunchtime.
Charles has submitted the Barouch
[chop]
IBM and RD give us programmers the same box of crayons respectively. It's
up
to us to draw with them.
Mark Johnson
That is only true if you utilize the base BASIC code statements. Each
flavor has its own special functions and user exits, but they both contain
the same core BASIC
The online Help Basic has a lot of the flavor differences indicated.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: RE: [U2] Standards [was:OCONV Extraction Question - Good
Practice]
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:19:23 -0500
[chop]
IBM and RD give us programmers
Colin,
excuse my top-posting - I'm using Outlook.
Lol. Well it was supposed to be rhetorical and I wasn't expecting a
response but since you have; may I cast an opinion that boiling down a
definition of good code to being efficient and maintainable and
calling it a standard is an
to draw with them.
Mark Johnson
- Original Message -
From: Boydell, Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:27 PM
Subject: RE: [U2] Standards [was:OCONV Extraction Question - Good Practice]
Colin,
excuse my top-posting - I'm using
