Prev: Functional Programming book review
Next: Routine to display Information about input file
From: Doug Miller on 10 Jun 2010 10:52
In article <huqpoq$nbb$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>In article <hup67i$sn6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>>In article <vjdv069j2sjvtmfqun4hblb83r8j9geqpt(a)4ax.com>,
>>cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
>>
>>>One of the things that made IBM Assembler and FORTRAN relatively
>>>unreadable for me was the 8 and 6 character restrictions on names.
>>
>>In my experience, the unreadability results not from the 8-character
>>limitation but rather from unimaginative programmers. My first job in IT was
>>in an assembler shop, where one of the other programmers had a penchant for
>>using statement labels like these -- and found in this order in the program,
>>too:
>>A00001
>>B00001
>>A0000001
>>C000001
>>A0001
>>B000001
>>A000001
>>Her code was, of course, full of unconditional branches.
>
>And yet... her code was allowed into Prod while code I have written has
>been returned from Review with comments like 'SEARCH verb not permitted'.

Review?! What's that? Not in *that* shop.... where the only criterion for
making it into production was passing acceptance testing.
From: Anonymous on 10 Jun 2010 11:20
In article <huqu6u$lj7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>In article <huqpoq$nbb$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>In article <hup67i$sn6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>>In my experience, the unreadability results not from the 8-character
>>>limitation but rather from unimaginative programmers. My first job in IT was
>>>in an assembler shop, where one of the other programmers had a penchant for
>>>using statement labels like these -- and found in this order in the program,
>>>too:
>>>A00001
>>>B00001
>>>A0000001
>>>C000001
>>>A0001
>>>B000001
>>>A000001
>>>Her code was, of course, full of unconditional branches.
>>
>>And yet... her code was allowed into Prod while code I have written has
>>been returned from Review with comments like 'SEARCH verb not permitted'.
>
>Review?! What's that? Not in *that* shop.... where the only criterion for
>making it into production was passing acceptance testing.

Let me guess... and 'acceptance testing' would often turn into 'Don't do
what I told you to do last week, do what I'm tellin' ya to do now!'?

DD

From: Howard Brazee on 10 Jun 2010 11:49
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:36:27 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:

>And yet... her code was allowed into Prod while code I have written has
>been returned from Review with comments like 'SEARCH verb not permitted'.

People tend to look for easy checks. We can all agree that this
code has SEARCH, but agreeing that "this code is good enough" isn't so
easy. Which is why successful authors have stories about how their
best seller was rejected by a professional publishing house.

And why my resume didn't make it to the head of IS when it did not
include the words "COBOL II".

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Doug Miller on 10 Jun 2010 12:41
In article <huqvsn$g8j$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>In article <huqu6u$lj7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>>In article <huqpoq$nbb$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>>In article <hup67i$sn6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>In my experience, the unreadability results not from the 8-character
>>>>limitation but rather from unimaginative programmers. My first job in IT was
>
>>>>in an assembler shop, where one of the other programmers had a penchant for
>>>>using statement labels like these -- and found in this order in the program,
>
>>>>too:
>>>>A00001
>>>>B00001
>>>>A0000001
>>>>C000001
>>>>A0001
>>>>B000001
>>>>A000001
>>>>Her code was, of course, full of unconditional branches.
>>>
>>>And yet... her code was allowed into Prod while code I have written has
>>>been returned from Review with comments like 'SEARCH verb not permitted'.
>>
>>Review?! What's that? Not in *that* shop.... where the only criterion for
>>making it into production was passing acceptance testing.
>
>Let me guess... and 'acceptance testing' would often turn into 'Don't do
>what I told you to do last week, do what I'm tellin' ya to do now!'?

No, that actually was pretty rigorous. Management was very stringent about
making sure nothing got into production without thorough testing. As a
consequence, bugs in production programs were quite rare, far less common than
any place I worked after that.
From: Anonymous on 10 Jun 2010 13:47
In article <hur4j4$ff9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>In article <huqvsn$g8j$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>In article <huqu6u$lj7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>>>In article <huqpoq$nbb$1(a)reader1.panix.com>, docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>>>In article <hup67i$sn6$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>Doug Miller <spambait(a)milmac.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>In my experience, the unreadability results not from the 8-character
>>>>>limitation but rather from unimaginative programmers. My first job in IT was
>>
>>>>>in an assembler shop, where one of the other programmers had a penchant for
>>>>>using statement labels like these -- and found in this order in the program,
>>
>>>>>too:
>>>>>A00001
>>>>>B00001
>>>>>A0000001
>>>>>C000001
>>>>>A0001
>>>>>B000001
>>>>>A000001
>>>>>Her code was, of course, full of unconditional branches.
>>>>
>>>>And yet... her code was allowed into Prod while code I have written has
>>>>been returned from Review with comments like 'SEARCH verb not permitted'.
>>>
>>>Review?! What's that? Not in *that* shop.... where the only criterion for
>>>making it into production was passing acceptance testing.
>>
>>Let me guess... and 'acceptance testing' would often turn into 'Don't do
>>what I told you to do last week, do what I'm tellin' ya to do now!'?
>
>No, that actually was pretty rigorous. Management was very stringent about
>making sure nothing got into production without thorough testing. As a
>consequence, bugs in production programs were quite rare, far less common than
>any place I worked after that.

Ahhhhh, I think I see... a difference in terminology, perhaps. What
you're calling 'thorough testing' sounds like 'whack the code with a
two-by-four's worth of really rotten data and see how it reacts';
'acceptance testing' is a phrase I associate with 'show the user a stack
of greenbar and get told 'I know that's what I told you but it's not what
I want!'

DD

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Functional Programming book review
Next: Routine to display Information about input file