When I started in this business you got one compile turn a night. Omit a comma? Cost you 24 hours. Better to spend hours desk-checking. I prided myself on my ability to desk-check.
Now I do most of my compiles on my desktop and so I have gotten very cavalier about "let the compiler find the errors." I will change a variable name in the field definition, compile, and then just go fix the statements that are now in error. (Assuming some situation where a global replace does not make sense.) Also of course works better for a more rigorously compile-time-checked language than it would for assembler. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Brennan Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: even an old mainframer can do it Good to hear! During that time one of my other supervisors/teachers would tell me about her application experience. She said no matter how complex her COBOL programs were, they would not only compile first time but would run perfectly. This of course was due to her rigorous desk-checking which I assume took days. I remember thinking "that's crazy" but I just kept quiet. I'll give her a break because that could have been at the time of card punching where such desk-checking made far more sense. On 8/18/2021 10:23 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > I program that way to this day. (Lots of compiles of small changes, that > is.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
