Re: Chalk one up for "The Cycle"

[Jerry Adams <jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Last night, while sipping a mint julep on my deck, I got to thinking 
about the "non-cycle is more logical, intuitive."  I have to agree with 
the statement, though I occasionally write cycle programs in ILE RPG 
(even with subprocedures - how sick is that?).


But, then, I remembered subfile programs.  Though I write subfile 
programs, no one has (yet) been able to convince me that subfiles are 
"easy and intuitive" to understand.  On the other hand I wrote subfile 
programs on the /36.  Since the /36 doesn't have the built-in 
(cycle-like?) subfile stuff, everything (and I mean everything) had to 
be coded in the routines. 


As much of a pain as subfiles are to program (or maybe it's just me), I 
haven't heard (and don't expect to hear) anyone wanting to code subfiles 
outside the built in system logic and handling.  I no longer write 
subfiles "manually;" that would be pretty masochistic.


        * Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i5/iSeries Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
        615.995.7024
fax
        615.995.1201
email
        jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Mark Villa wrote:
> I like the film industry analogy *much* better than the one I was
> going to use, my spark plug wrench. Don't use it often but it's there
> when needed and is the best tool for the job.
>
> The cycle? Yes, just tell the newbies to think of it like "the
> original 4GL" = some of the work is automated. They won't have to
> crack a book.
> And that the only problem with the language and utility is that MS did
> not market it.
>
> Putting SQL in production is more complex to QA IMHO. But when
> considering multi-platform development it is obviously the preference
> between these two.
>
>   
> > > It is when the rogue programmer _decides on their own_ to use something
> > >       
> different that they cause problems. <<
>
> <<-- I  bet this rarely happens in the real world. lol
>
>
> Mark
>