Re: Quieter Monitors

[Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:52 AM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> I guess I prefer to write code which up-front checks (and caters)  
> for as
> many errors as I can think of. Of course this means that the code is  
> full of
> little IF-clauses checking for this error and that. So I'd be in  
> your latter
> group.
>
> I've never liked the MONITOR op-code, because it allows developers  
> to rely
> on the system to catch things which they should have checked for in  
> the
> first place. In Scott Klement's article which Kurt linekd to, Scott  
> uses his
> CleanUp() procedure to clean up job log errors that might happen if he
> attempts to divide by zero. Me, I would have checked for zero before  
> the
> divide. Likewise with the other errors.



Sorry Rory, on this one I have to (almost) 100% disagree with you.

Of course any programming technique can be abused - but in my opinion  
the beauty of Monitor (i.e. try/catch) coding is that it a) makes it  
obvious what the intended code path was and b) exactly which types of  
error the programmer anticipated and how they are handled. You can  
never tell that for sure with the older programming techniques. It is  
sooooo much better than encountering a test on a variable and then  
finding out 60 lines later why the programmer did it. And please don't  
try to convince me that comments are the answer to that problem <grin>

The job log issue is a design "feature" that should be fixed by IBM -  
but the coding technique is a good one. DOn't throw out the baby with  
the bath water.

Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com