Re: Porting 4GL Version 2.x To 6.x

Ian Goddard wrote: > > Mike, > > It seems that Timothy and yourself are arguing about two entirely > different scenarios - in fact I can think of 3 basic situations: > > 1. A stable business environment supported by stable code (what Timothy > describes) > > 2. A rat's nest of changes (what you describe) > > 3. An evolving business environment supported by evolving but properly > maintained code (i.e. reviewed and then modified or re-written as > required) > Well, I have a client still using IBM Series Ones in a production environment. Hows that for stability? They are in the most need of code reviews since there are applications 15+ yrs old and noone, noone at the company hasn't the faintest idea what they do, only that the system will break if these apps don't run. My point is that in all of the above scenarios, you have enough reason to have code reviews. What Timothy suggested was that Code reviews were expensive and to cut corners could be eliminated. A code review now gives them the chance to document the code and determine what changes have occured over the years. You are right that I am extremely sensitive about software design. I have had to live with the results made by others who tried to take unecessary short cuts. The problem is that by the time the company had realized their mistakes, the damage is done. Just food for thought. -Mike -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif