Re: Proc or Para
In a message dated 2/4/2004 11:40:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize it and i haven't seen it on any U2 systems. RPL, which predates this further never made it past the mid 1970's. Actually RPL was alive and well into, at least, the early 80s. Will -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Proc or Para
Old history now, but as a Pr1mate (as in used, not worked for), I never learnt (or even MET!) procs until extremely late in the day. Official support for procs appeared with INFORMATION 8.1, released probably about 1991 just before they went bust :-( It just WASN'T THERE on any system I ever worked with ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Proc or Para Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year proctologist myself allows me to support a wide variety of platforms. Many of my UD/UV/D3 clients, while having paragraphs and other newer additions available, still function with a lot of code that was inherited from earlier conversions. Oftentimes management many not be able to justify a re-write of code just because the language isn't today's flavor. Coming from Microdata since the 70's, you only had procs with procread/procwrite as a way to get fancy with PQ procs. PQN in 1979 offered more read/write and direct variable features but the other licenses were developing EXECUTE which, looking back, was the better tact. Still, i keep my proc skills sharpened as I still have to support it. Proc does have some pretty nifty features for such a simple command set. Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize it and i haven't seen it on any U2 systems. RPL, which predates this further never made it past the mid 1970's. Isn't it great to have choices. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: Results [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: Proc or Para L, Proc predates Pick BASIC as a programming language. The short answer (to my mind) is that Paragraph is an add-on to Access/English/AQL/Retrieve, but Proc is really a scripting language. If you need to automate procedures, tie complex programs into a batch, or do other heavy lifting, Proc is great. The problem that gets all these Proc haters on their soapbox isn't Proc, its when people use Proc for the wrong tasks (like Proc menus instead of parametric menus). Proc really is incredibily powerful and well worth knowing, but it shouldn't be used for 9-% of the tasks it is normally associated with in the Pick world. Personally, I rtarely use Paragraph because I need to port software. - Charles 'Proc is JCL on Steroids' Barouch -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Proc or Para
Think of PROC as a type of dos BAT file... Sure you could write programs to schedule things to happen one after the other, but it sure is easier to just create a BAT file, ain't it? AUTOEXEC.BAT? Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was a simple procedural tool. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell Sent: 05 February 2004 07:08 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: RE: Proc or Para Isn't it great to have choices. Choice, yeah sure; but um, why wouldn't you just write a program? ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Proc or Para
Yeah, they evolved, perhaps too far, but essentially it was a simple procedural tool. Wrong way round. Huh? I said Procs in the PQ form came before PQN's... Waz wrong wi' dat? The evolution was PQ to PQN ... From simple batch (step 1 to 2 to 3) we moved to labels (step 1 to 2 to (if a = b) then step 1 else step 3) Anyhows... Forgive incorrectnesses... :) -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Proc or Para
And if it was not for Glen and Steve Buck who helped push for this inclusion, PI might never have had this as part of the core product. It did come to be a key piece of the product when PI+, PI/Open hit the market as we encountered a lot of old MD, PICK shops that we targeted to convert. What we found though is that unless you grew up with PROCs, most existing PI users did not embrace them once it became core. -Lance Glenn Herbert wrote: I was helping write that proc processor for Pr1me starting in 1986. In the conversions group we used to install it as an additional package (basically adding the BASIC code and cataloging it!) on sites converting to PI. The processor was still not IN PI until shortly after I left (just before the big downfall). I still have the master documentation set for the processor that I wrote for Tech Pubs. It's in a box somewhere. At 03:06 AM 02/05/2004, you wrote: Old history now, but as a Pr1mate (as in used, not worked for), I never learnt (or even MET!) procs until extremely late in the day. Official support for procs appeared with INFORMATION 8.1, released probably about 1991 just before they went bust :-( It just WASN'T THERE on any system I ever worked with ... Cheers, Wol -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson Sent: 05 February 2004 04:41 To: U2 Users Discussion List Subject: Re: Proc or Para Here, Here!! I agree with Chuck on the value of procs. Being a 25 year proctologist myself allows me to support a wide variety of platforms. Many of my UD/UV/D3 clients, while having paragraphs and other newer additions available, still function with a lot of code that was inherited from earlier conversions. Oftentimes management many not be able to justify a re-write of code just because the language isn't today's flavor. Coming from Microdata since the 70's, you only had procs with procread/procwrite as a way to get fancy with PQ procs. PQN in 1979 offered more read/write and direct variable features but the other licenses were developing EXECUTE which, looking back, was the better tact. Still, i keep my proc skills sharpened as I still have to support it. Proc does have some pretty nifty features for such a simple command set. Earlier PQ proc didn't have read/write so they developed a sideline language called BATCH which did these tasks. BATCH is officially removed from the direct decendancy of R80/83 as D3 doesn't recognize it and i haven't seen it on any U2 systems. RPL, which predates this further never made it past the mid 1970's. Isn't it great to have choices. my 1 cent. - Original Message - From: Results [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: U2 Users Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: Proc or Para L, Proc predates Pick BASIC as a programming language. The short answer (to my mind) is that Paragraph is an add-on to Access/English/AQL/Retrieve, but Proc is really a scripting language. If you need to automate procedures, tie complex programs into a batch, or do other heavy lifting, Proc is great. The problem that gets all these Proc haters on their soapbox isn't Proc, its when people use Proc for the wrong tasks (like Proc menus instead of parametric menus). Proc really is incredibily powerful and well worth knowing, but it shouldn't be used for 9-% of the tasks it is normally associated with in the Pick world. Personally, I rtarely use Paragraph because I need to port software. - Charles 'Proc is JCL on Steroids' Barouch -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users *** This transmission is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain private and confidential information. If this has come to you in error you must not act on anything disclosed in it, nor must you copy it, modify it, disseminate it in any way, or show it to anyone. Please e-mail the sender to inform us of the transmission error or telephone ECA International immediately and delete the e-mail from your information system. Telephone numbers for ECA International offices are: Sydney +61 (0)2 9911 7799, Hong Kong + 852 2121 2388, London +44 (0)20 7351 5000 and New York +1 212 582 2333. *** -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Proc or Para
Procs are definitely a subject that will start a good debate. I don't think Procs offer any performance advantage at all. It does offer the ability to do things that are possible in paragraphs like PROCWRITES. That said, I personally have never been a fan of procs. I started out in the Pick marketplace as a programmer for a software company that had an R83 Pick based manf package and was just moving to Prime Information (yes, way back when dinosaurs ran wild). I had to opportunity to work on both coming from a neutral background. My reaction to Pick with the cryptic Procs over Information with it's online help and command stacker was you'd have to have some fascination with pain to prefer Pick. I am no fan of proc. I consider it a necessary skillset to support a few systems. Never would use it on Universe if I wasn't forced to. My 2 cents. Mike R. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 12:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Proc or Para All, I am accustomed to using paragraphs. Some systems I work on rely on Procs for almost every task. The ProVerb guide mentions that Procs ...are a bridge from a Pick system to UniVerse, allowing those of you with Pick backgrounds to port Pick applications to UniVerse... and ...ProVerb is a good tool for minor programming tasks Is there a performance advantage to using one or the other? I realize this might be a touchy topic but it's one I've been wondering about for some time. the ProVerb manual makes it sound like procs were a migration tool of sorts. Regards, L. Slingford -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: Proc or Para
At 12:38 PM 02/04/2004, you wrote: All, Is there a performance advantage to using one or the other? I realize this might be a touchy topic but it's one I've been wondering about for some time. the ProVerb manual makes it sound like procs were a migration tool of sorts. Paragraphs are only slightly more efficient than a proc for the simple reason that a line within a paragraph is first scanned for any inline prompting, then immediately handed off to the command line execution process, whereas a proc must first interpretively assemble the command line then, when the P command is found, hands it off to the command line execution process (which of course scans for any inline prompting). Think of a paragraph as simply a stack of command lines executed in order (albeit with some testing/branching logic). Think of a proc as... well.. cryptic... *S* With processor speeds being what they are today, I doubt very much that the minute speed differences matter much (IMO). The reason uv proc was considered a migration tool is that within the original implementation of uv, there was no pick support (only ideal and prime flavors). It was envisioned that people would migrate those nasty, cryptic procs (which by the way, I DO not consider nasty) to paragraphs. Only hitch was that paragraphs did not support all the functionality available with procs (jump backwards to labels, error handling, etc...) so a proc processor was created. Granted, it was not 100% compatible with Pick (see other thread related to proc error handling), but it certainly eased those migrations (i was involved in quite a few of them back in the 80s). Regards, L. Slingford -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
