>The source was unreadable because of the amount and size of copybooks. >When compiled, the listing was so big that it was near impossible to follow. >Needless to say, the variable and paragraph names didn't help too much. >Have you ever tried reading a DMS for CICS (again, 40 years ago) >generated COBOL listing? >My point is that anything can be unreadable, including wordy COBOL. >I used to code FORTRAN, ASSEMBLER and APL for a living (early '80s). >These 3 can be readable if there are departmental standards in place. ************************************** I agree that unreadable code can be written in any language. (Long, long ago I was a FORTRAN programmer. (This was on IBM 70xx machines.) The nature of some applications made meaningful variable names difficult.) IMO, wild use of copybooks was often a problem.
Perhaps it is only my experience, but (again, long ago) I found that if the COBOL programmers were also experienced in the application area (such as payroll, billing, inventory, etc) they were much more likely to use meaningful variable names, minor but meaningful paragraph comments, etc. I realize this mixture of programming and actual application expertise is becoming less common, unfortunately. Bill Ogden ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
