[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[open-cobol-list] Identification Division still needed!

From: vince Coen
Subject: [open-cobol-list] Identification Division still needed!
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:34:11 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

Yes I agree but I ALWAYS use notes within a Cobol source to comment or
explain what the programs does or/and within sections, paragraphs if not
only to remind me why I did something.

It is hard enough to do maintenance on one's own program after some time
let alone someone else's program without extra comments describing a
section of code.

I also use it to record changes to the code.

This I have done since the 60's but as for system & program
documentation that still mostly remains as separate documents if not
because it was produced by the Analyst for the project and in maintained
as well as I can for any changes that occur.

This is fairly standard practice throughout the industry (the IT one!).


On 06/02/15 15:10, John Culleton wrote:
              START RANT.

One of the biggest mistakes made by CODASYL and
its successors is the gradual annihilation of the
Identification Division. In 2015 as in 1959
programmers love to program and hate to document.
The standard paragraphs in the ID regularize and
encourage internal documentation. The most useful
paragraph was 'REMARKS' which was the first
to go. I always judged a programs quality starting
with the Remarks paragraph. Today, lacking an
official paragraph wise programmers create what
amounts to a Remarks paragraph and highlight it by
surrounding it on fours sides with asterisks.
Frankly that is a lot more work then just
including the standard paragraph names
in the personal template.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]