Did I write a good (efficient) program?
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 1 Apr 2008 13:08 On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:04:49 GMT, "Michael Mattias" <mmattias(a)talsystems.com> wrote: >>>1. Does it work? >>>2. Is it *relatively* efficient? >>>3. Is it maintainable? >>> >>>You need a "yes" answer to all three questions to have well-written code. >> >> Of course, the industry has changed considerably - which has changed >> how we grade these. > >I don't about "industry" but I have always weighed 'maintainability' very, >very heavily: When was the last time you saw a program which NEVER was >upgraded/enhanced/changed? I weigh it heavily as well - the atomic size of our components changes. When maintenance can be done by pulling out one module and plugging in another, we get an "A" by making that module easy to access and replace. Actually fixing that part isn't as important as it once was. This process of change is at least as old as interchangeable parts in the industrial revolution.
From: tlmfru on 1 Apr 2008 14:15 Richard <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote in message news:ee588146-8f0f-44cf-9674-51a4037ecdf9(a)s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Apr 1, 3:40 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > >> As > >> machines got faster, we kept doing it out of habit and because no one told us to stop. We > >> now program as though the year is still 1973, > >> >Who are the 'we' that you speak of ? Are you making another of your >> >infamous 'universal truths' about 'all Cobol programmers', or is it >> >just yourself that is a 'royal wee'. > >> 'We' refers to those who pre-optimize code before there is evidence it needs to be >> optimized. >Just you then is it ? That's uncalled-for. Any programmer worth his thinking cap does this sort of thing automatically - for instance, making sure that calculations that don't beed to be inside a loop are moved outside it; or using a single variable to hold the results of a complex calculation rather than reiterating the calculation itself ... and so forth. PL
From: Rick Smith on 1 Apr 2008 14:01 "MikeB" <MPBrede(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:408bb0cb-b47e-43b4-b4f0-b604d6c36a3e(a)p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > I haven't written COBOL in a number of years and am quite rusty. > Recently someone asked my help to write some code to display an IP V6 > address in human-readable code. I wrote something, but am not sure if > I used the best available techniques. Please have a look at what I > wrote and feel free to comment. Having taken the time and made the effort to truly understand the problem and how it may be solved, I find that the "best available technique" for obtaining the numeric value of a character is the use of the intrinsic function, ORD. As for the balance of your program, I found no technique that is necessarily better than what you have done. > Thanks. You are welcome.
From: Frank Swarbrick on 1 Apr 2008 15:04 >>> On 3/31/2008 at 8:40 PM, in message <c463v3p7pdl8dc6dl5seo7j6u0mfrev3qr(a)4ax.com>, Robert<no(a)e.mail> wrote: > In 1973 everything (except files) was fixed length. We used fixed length > strings, numbers, > arrays, records and blocks in files. Now, outside Cobol, most things are > variable length. > The next Cobol standard proposes adding 'any length' data items and > arrays. The Old Guard > are opposed. Is anyone here a member of this Old Guard that is opposed to variable length strings? I certainly am not. I would love them. Frank
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Apr 2008 16:30
"Richard" <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote in message news:ee588146-8f0f-44cf-9674-51a4037ecdf9(a)s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com... <snip> I can't recall _anyone_ claiming that ODO is 'too slow'. In most cases they were completely indifferent to whether it was faster or slower. They just made stuff work and left it to the CPU to get it done. You seem to have this idea that every argument is either black or white. If they don't flock to follow what you do then they must be doing the extreme opposite. <snip> [Pete] Robert, I think this is very fair and, for me, goes straight to the nub of the problem that some people here have with your posts. I'm not getting involved in your specific argument here, but I definitely think you could benefit by thinking about this. I find your posts and ideas very valuable, and sometimes what you post is a different insight into something often taken for granted. I like the way that you challenge old ideas and we need that. However, Richard is right on the button with this observation; inasmuch as you DO seem to see black and white only, when most of us accept shades of grey. Certainly, a forthright position has more impact and is often easier to maintain, but if it makes you overlook the actual responses you elicit, then it is counter productive. Think on it :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |