On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Bill Woodger <bill.wood...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2016 01:47:07 UTC+2, John McKown wrote: > ...> > > Hum, I would guess this will be a case of "20 lines of code and 200 > lines > > of comments (excluding cursing)" > > > > > > > > > > > Excluding cursing, and including recursing. > > Any IT management who chooses that route over > TwoSimpleProgramsWithNothingButOrdinaryCodeCompile/ > LinkProcessingAndOrdinaryRunTime. is... well, choose your own ending. > > Remember, there is Frank's suggestion to have the two programs in one > source and compile them together, like they have some deep affinity just > through proximity, that may serve the "do it the way I say" people. > Hum, that wouldn't work here. I'm fairly sure the CA-Endevor will barf up its lungs if you try to put two source modules, which create two load modules / program objects, into a single source member. It wouldn't be able to 1:1 track an executable and associated source member. > > One COBOL program doing two things (and being shoe-horned with a > blow-torch to do so) vs two programs *with identical, as in identical, > really the same, except for no ENTRY* (Ok, not really identical, but you > know what I mean) code. That's surely easy, even for a CS Grad? > -- Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
