C coding

Thanks Scott

I understand now.
It is the same old story, a tool is only a tool and the skill comes from
user , dare I say craftsman.

As ever I am thankful to sit at the feet of a master.
Oh sorry about the IBM i called the AS400, (good thing I never mentioned
S38)

Frank


>message: 6
>date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:35:27 -0600
>from: Scott Klement <[email protected]>
>subject: Re: [C400-L] C coding
>
>Frank,
>
>In my opinion, C (and C++) are very well suited to writing things like
>tools, compilers, OSes, drivers, and similar things.  In my job, I use
>it for 5250 emulation products, modernization tools (5250 screen
>refacing, Open Access handlers that produce web applications, etc.)
>
>It's a very different experience writing this sort of code, since it
>rarely uses a database at all, doesn't really ever do number crunching
>or totalling, etc. Very different from business logic.  I find RPG to be
>a much better environment for business logic.  (And, in fact, where I
>work we use RPG as well, using C where it's appropriate, and RPG where
>it's appropriate, etc.)
>
>We certainly do serious coding in ILE C on IBM i.  (Sorry, I will not
>say "on AS400", as I don't want to appear _that_ outdated.)
>
>You can write very nice, maintainable code in C.  Just as with any
>programming language (C, C++, Java, PHP, RPG, JavaScript... doesn't
>matter) it's always best to divide your code into modular parts that
>stand alone, and for each part to have a 'well-defined interface' that
>consists of a prototype (called "signature" in some languages) that
>defines what is allowed to be passed into the routine, and this is the
>_only_ way that variable data gets passed on a call.
>
>This assists with encapsulation: You don't need to understand the logic
>within the routine to call it, you only need to understand the
>interface.   It also assists with reusability...  you don't have to
>worry about it affecting something outside of the routine, because
>everything is internal, except the bits you can see in the interface.
>It also assists with maintenance and agility, because you can rewrite
>the internals of the code without worrying about it affecting the
>callers, as long as you keep the interface compatible.
>
>The other stuff you mention (loop on a single line of code making it
>hard to step thru in a debugger, etc) is just a matter of coding style.
>  I wouldn't even try to debug an intermediate representation of the
>code (IBM doesn't give us debugging tools for that, anyway) but if I
>needed to debug it, I'd simply insert some line breaks into the code so
>it's not all on one line...  then I can use a normal debugger.  It's not
>that big of a deal.
-- 
This is the Bare Metal Programming IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries) (C400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: C400-L-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/c400-l
or email: C400-L-request-Zwy7GipZuJhWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/c400-l.