Disassembler
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Mar 2006 05:11 Hey! What is this?! "Let's give Pete a hard time" week ? :-) (Actually, Chuck, I thought your response was witty, if inaccurate :-)) Pete. TOP POST no more from me below... "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens(a)unisys.com> wrote in message news:du9nde$2gi3$1(a)si05.rsvl.unisys.com... > > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:46qgvsFcgl1gU1(a)individual.net... > >> No apology required. I just believe that one cheap shot deserves another. >> I come from a long line of warmongers... :-) > > Parsimonious ones at that, it appears ... ;-) > > -Chuck Stevens >
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Mar 2006 05:51 "Peter Lacey" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:4408981B.546FCEC0(a)mts.net... > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> "Peter Lacey" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message >> news:440604BA.81BF8077(a)mts.net... >> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> The problem with Evangelism is that it seems to close the ears... >> >> >> >> Pete. >> > >> > Pot calling the kettle black, methinks! >> > >> > Peter L. >> >> Perhaps you could give an example to back up this calumny? > > Evangelist-types display several characteristics: they are smug, > patronizing, and unwilling to answer questions that challenge their > assumptions. > > Smugness: > Feb. 27: Ah, the joys of maintaining source... :-) It was said with tongue in cheek. > and your statement above ... > > Patronizing: > You prefaced an answer with a remark such as "for the sake of > intellectual argument, in the extremely unlikely event that ...": it had > the distinct air of "all right, I'll answer your silly question just to > shut you up". Whether or not that's how you felt, that's the impression > I got. I can't apologize for having MY reaction to such things instead > of someone else's. No you can't. I can assure you it carried none of the assumptions and overtones you suggest. It was so prefaced because NOT to do so would have weakened my argument (which was that this event would not happen). Had I not responded at all (and normall I try not to argue hypotheticals) you would have said I was ignoring your post. Like you say, you can only be responsible for how you see things. > > Unwillingness: > see below. AFAIK you still haven't addressed my point. > >> >> There is a subtle but important difference between not listening, and >> listening but not being persuaded. >> >> In my correspondence with you, you were not persuaded. I listened to what >> you said and tried to address it on several occasions. The concepts were >> foreign to you, and you already had closed your mind to the >> possibilities. >> Nevertheless, I invested time because you asked a fair question. > > I beg to differ. True, I am not persuaded, but that's because you > didn't answer my point. (N.B., I lost a few days' posts after my > previous effusion, so you may in fact have answered). The concepts are > not foreign to me, although the implementation of them is as I've had > only the slightest opportunity to try them out. They are hardly new; > RAD has been around for a long time and I know that in the mid 80's I > was trying to work out the possibilities of being a vendor of objects. > > I have no trouble at all with your methods and documentation > requirements. The latter fill a need that I see even if you don't > agree: surely that can't be bad. It does occur to me that there must be > a practical limit to the size of the system that you can decompose to > the "atomic" level you work at and still keep track of the whole. > That has been covered in other posts since. > My point was, and is, that your stance of "never maintain source code" > seems to imply that "maintenance of source code is never necessary". If I wanted to say that, I would have. Of course maintenance of source code is necessary for existing sources. I am not arguing that and have never done so. I am saying that if a component based approach is adopted, the components can be (and, in my opinion, should be...) written so that they don't need to be maintained. I know this is a foreign concept to many. But it isn't if you place it in the context in which I said it, and not in the context in which you are working currently. > Somebody else pointed out that even if the components are totally > accurate for all time and under all circumstances that the "glue" code > that holds them all together can be incorrect. Sure. But that is being automated and so is not problematic. Besides, the 'glue' represents maybe 10% of all the code that gets executed when the system is run. I imagine you would agree that it is better to maintain 10%, than 100%, as is the case in non component based sstems? I only go a bit further > in suggesting that the absolute certainty of correctness that you are > claiming is not possible. Then we have to differ on that. I claim that if "Move A to B" is NOT maintained, it will continue to move A to B correctly, with a reasonable degree of certainty, for the life of the system. You say it isn't possible; I say it is. But we are not discussing the same thing. You have already read implications into and taken inferences from, what I wrote, which are nothing like what I intended. >The examples I gave come from the real world > and illustrate the principle, notwithstanding that someone else said > "they're programs, not components". >> Well, my whole argument and approach comes from the real world. I have components that have been running live for years now and have never been maintained or changed since they went into production. >> That's OK. I wasn't evangelising anyway. Really don't care one way or the >> other. :-) >> >> Pete. > > Your way of expressing yourself often sounds like you are. Like you said above, you can only be responsible for how you feel about something. If my tone creates this reaction in you, then it might be better not to read my posts. Peter, I honestly have nothing to evangelise here. I'm not on commission, I'm not trying to sell a product, and I refuse to get angry if people disagree with me. In fact, fair disagreement is beneficial for all concerned. I honestly did try to answer your questions. And thank you for backing up your "pot kettle" statement and giving me this chance to defend my position on it. That was the fair thing to do. > As you > advised somebody else, don't take it seriously. I can assure you I don't. I learned long ago not to take this forum seriously. >As you state just > above, you don't care anyway. Given that, I don't know why I bother > querying you or responding to what you say. Yes, that is an interesting phenomenon... :-) What I don't care about is whether people here are persuaded towards components or not. I stated elsewhere what the best I can hope for here is, and I am under no illusions about whom I am talking to. Nevertheless, if a question is asked, I'll try and respond to it. What I DO care about is that I made the case for this approach to the best of my ability, and let people draw their own conclusions. > BTW: what happened to Robert Wagner? > Robert probably found that posting here wasn't changing any minds and gave up. You might ask what happened to Judson MacLendon... It's sad really because whether you liked him (Robert) or not, he had some interesting viewpoints on things. It is also possible that he is not around any more. Many of the regulars in this forum are not getting any younger. One day there'll be no posts from me... :-) Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Mar 2006 05:52 "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1141423602.984356.60950(a)v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >> news:25cf6$4407b441$45491d7a$21588(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >> > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >> >> news:7ecdf$440658c7$45491d7a$4125(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >> >>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >> Ask them what the term "chad" means to them. (Or set this as homework..) >> >> Those who have no idea get a demerit or 5 pressups on the spot. >> >> Those who say it is a country in Africa get a pass. If they can name the >> capital (N'Djamena) they get a merit. >> >> Pete. > > I bet you had to look the capital up! :-) Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Mar 2006 06:11 "Peter Lacey" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:4408C84A.667ACAD2(a)mts.net... > Alistair wrote: >> >> Pete Dashwood wrote: >> > "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >> > news:25cf6$4407b441$45491d7a$21588(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >> > > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> > >> "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >> > >> news:7ecdf$440658c7$45491d7a$4125(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >> > >>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >> > Ask them what the term "chad" means to them. (Or set this as >> > homework..) >> > >> > Those who have no idea get a demerit or 5 pressups on the spot. >> > >> > Those who say it is a country in Africa get a pass. If they can name >> > the >> > capital (N'Djamena) they get a merit. >> > >> > Pete. >> >> I bet you had to look the capital up! > > I thought it was Chad/Fort Lamy then > Burkina Fasa/N'Djamena now... > > PL I DID look that up... :-) Burkina Faso/Ougadougo used to be Upper Volta. As far as I can tell, it is not the same country as Chad, but the map of Africa has changed (and is continuing to do so) rapidly and extensively so it is hard to be sure. Pete.
From: Howard Brazee on 6 Mar 2006 09:16
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 23:51:07 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >Then we have to differ on that. I claim that if "Move A to B" is NOT >maintained, it will continue to move A to B correctly, with a reasonable >degree of certainty, for the life of the system. The trouble is, our job isn't to make sure that A gets moved to B. Our job is to make sure the correct bill gets to the right person - and the old program that included his social security number on the bill needs to be changed for privacy & security reasons. |