On Feb 21, 12:02 am, Tony Mechelynck <[email protected]>
wrote:
> So the
> criminal offence, if any (which remains to be seen), might be _teaching_
> COBOL or _requiring_ its use, but not _using_ it.
Normal coding is not use in isolation, one is always in communication
with whoever gets to maintain the code.
> If you say COBOL-74 was different from "my" COBOL in crippling terms, I
> have to defer to you. Was COBOL-74 freeform already?
Yes, but it still had no end-if, an unusable call statement, and the
all-variables-global data division. Cobol-85 cleaned things up a lot,
enabling logic to coded straightforwardly. But the cripples I
referred to were so enamoured of their copy books with GO TO paragraph-
exit they enshrined it in the coding standards. go tos are bad, but
when they're in copy books (included code), going to places in other
copy books, I find the notion of brain damage inescapable. That might
have been one shop going off on a tangent, but I encountered the same
practice (among other heinousness) on another unrelated project.
(That included something that was arguably criminally negligent,
because it concealed a back door that could be used to affect money
transfers.)
This may seem off-topic, but IMO is relevant to vim-dev at least.
Vim's developers might be aware of some aspects of the "house-style".
Regards, John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
