Re: [open-cobol-list] Sections in PROCEDURE DIVISION

[john Culleton]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:45:40 +0000 (GMT) Dave Stratford
<address@hidden> wrote:

> On 14 Mar, Chris Geldenhuis <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> > I agree with Vince.In fact performing paragraphs is forbidden
> > in our shop as is the perform through construct.
> 
> > It is far to easy to add a paragraph in the range of a
> > perform through range and change the program logic
> > unwittingly.
> 
> > Another banned construct is the alter verb.
> 
> > Both of the above make for code that is not maintainable over
> > the long term.
> 
> Apart from when I was learning cobol at college I don't think
> in over 25 years I've ever seen, or written, a cobol program
> longer than about 10 lines of procedure division which didn't
> have sections. Even some of the 5 line procedure divisions are
> made up of a single section.
> 
> The primary reason for this is that sections are mandatory in
> IDMSX programs as much of the standard IDMSX copy code is in
> sections.
> 
> I totally agree with Chris and Vince that sections make for
> simpler maintenance and structuring.
> 
> I've given a few severe (verbal) beatings to people who use
> perform thru. Anyone stupid enough to use it a second time
> would probably be looking for another job very quickly; so far
> it's never happened.
> 
> To me, and a lot of people I have worked for and with in the
> past, perform thru is FAR worse than go to.
> 
> Dave
> 
 I don't recall ever using PERFORM THRU, or sections except when
using sorts. And I seldom use COBOL sorts. The ISAM fle with
multiple keys is easier. My mentor for programming style has been
the the books by Paul Noll and others published by Mike Murach
and Associates. I don't criticize those who use sections, but it is
not part of my personal style. 


-- John Culleton