 | I'm not sure how I got tangled in this thread (I was on vacation for the
last 10 days), but I have to agree with Alastair and Robin. I also tend to
rewrite everything I learn simply because I enjoy knowing how it works.
Sometimes I find ways to improve it, sometimes I don't. Many times I find I want it
to work a specific way that makes sense to me.
Like many others, my library is a work in progress and is constantly
evolving. Every time I learn a new technique, I review my library for possible
updates. When I am trying to demonstrate a technique for someone, I tend to code
in the simplest possible form using the fewest number of lines. I think
this makes the sample code useful as a teaching tool. I also frequently take
this approach when I am developing a sample for someone else to build upon and
they will support exclusively.
On the other hand, when I develop production quality code that I will
support, I tend to use my base "model" and subroutine library to insure accuracy,
speed up the development time and leave myself all the bread crumbs possible
when the code unexpectedly breaks. For this reason, I developed a subroutine
coding style that allows me to "refresh" all my subroutines in an EXEC or an
entire PDS (after adequate testing).
I also agree with Robin, there is tons of good code out there that does not
use a template or boilerplate. There are definitely arguments for both
approaches. The nice thing about REXX is it supports many coding styles.
Rob
In a message dated 1/18/2005 12:15:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
robin.ryerse@EDS.COM writes:
The topic of this thread lead me to research some stats about the execs I
have written. Currently, I have exactlty 100 execs that are available for
general use within the lpar. The largest exec is 724 lines of code. The
total lines of code for the 100 execs is 8443; makes the average around 85
lines of code. Obviously no "massive boilerplate"s. I should point out that
the stats do not include the code for the function package which exclusively
Assembler.
I know there are those who prefer using the boiler plate strategy to ensure
completeness of error checking. But I do not subscribe to that approach. I
get no complaints about completeness or accuracy of the delivered
functionality.
As a discuusion point, I think the alternative to "boilerplate" should be
considered.
-----Original Message-----
From: TSO REXX Discussion List [mailto:TSO-REXX@VM.MARIST.EDU]On Behalf
Of Gray, Alastair
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:27 AM
To: TSO-REXX@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: massive boilerplate inclusions (was : functions returning
bo olean ... or failing ...)
Licence RobZ's library if you want, but where would the fun (value?) be in
that? I've written lots of code on different platforms and most of it has
been re-written more than once as I learned better ways of doing things
either when coding other projects or from reading, understanding and
re-writing other peoples code. Sure other people have often 'done it
better', but maybe next time you reinvent the wheel your version will be
better than theirs. In particular don't make the mistake of believing that
it's all been done before - sooner or later you hit problems that are new
and that's when you will need your hard won skills.
As for JAVA with it's tested routines and working samples. Can you perhaps
then explain to me why - almost without exclusion - most JAVA applications
are so bug ridden and poorly performing? (previous sentence bowdlerised).
Cheers,
Alastair Gray
Systems and Storage Type
(still lurking around on mainframe fora for now).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TSO REXX Discussion List
> [mailto:TSO-REXX@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Fenner, Jim
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:29 AM
>snip
> With Rexx one has to code EVERYTHING oneself - with Java, one
> gets a vast class library of tested routines and WORKING
> examples for free.
> Maybe we all ought
> to just individually pay Mr Zenuk for a licence to his entire
> library, the fruit of decades of experience, and toss out
> almost everything else we have written ... :-(
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For TSO-REXX subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to LISTSERV@VM.MARIST.EDU with the message: INFO TSO-REXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For TSO-REXX subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to LISTSERV@VM.MARIST.EDU with the message: INFO TSO-REXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For TSO-REXX subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to LISTSERV@VM.MARIST.EDU with the message: INFO TSO-REXX
|
|
