Susan, You make a good point, but the problem with that approach is that it stifles innovation and learning - though not in your case, of course :-)
I have known programmers who took a 'lowest common demoninator' approach that was based on systems that were obsolete 20+ years ago, ignoring useful constructs because possibly they weren't supported on McDonnell Douglas Reality kit back when they were learning - or more likely, because their first manager told them not to use them because (s)he had heard they weren't supported 10 years earlier still. We accuse IBM of not doing enough in R&D, and then refuse to use the tools they do provide for lack of compatibility (just how many UV houses out there actually USE the SQL or transactional functionality?) I would rather say, be aware of the differences and isolate them ... (In my case, I code in UniVerse as the widest feature set and use a precompiler to handle the differences) Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Joslyn > Sent: 30 September 2005 13:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [U2] Good Programming Practice Question......... > > One thing that has been over-looked in this conversation is > the notion of 'lowest common denominator programming'. > > My software runs on all MV platforms. Therefore, whenever > possible, I stick with syntax that works on all platforms. > When that is not possible, I resort to calls and includes and > CASE statements. ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
