Re: Globals In 4gl

John: A couple of things to bring up to their attention: Globals grab the memory when the program is started and hold on to it until the program ends. Global variables require the constant recompiling of all modules that make use of the globals file when any changes ate made to the file. It the globals file defines records using the like syntax, you have to compile everything if you alter a table that is referenced in the globals file. Modular variables allow for the re-use of code and removes the interdependency between all the modules. It is true that there is more coding involved when using strictly modular variables. however, this additional coding will pay off when you need to do something that works just like that other program. Modular variables increase the amount of re-usable code dramatically. I do not agree with you wanting to define arrays in globals (for reasons stated above). I know that you cannot pass arrays in function calls. But, do you really need to pass the entire array? Why not write the function to deal with one record and call it multiple times in a loop if really needed. Define the array in a controlling function and pass the elements to called functions. This method makes it easier to change the number of elements, all of them are in one function. When the function has completed, the memory is released, or at least made available for re-use else where in the program. -- Ron Delpiere-Smith System and Database Administrator Sloan Valve Company (remove the "nospam_" from the email address) John Leipold <jleipold@msn.com> wrote in article <uZ8Q7vzs9GA.211@upnetnews03>... > The subject of "global" and "modular" data definitions being used in > Informix 4gl code came up the other day. > > The system I am currently working on uses globals as the defacto standard to > pass data from module to module / program to program. Most of the 4gi > programs use 15 to 20 complete global record definitions (DEFINE g_record > LIKE record.*) and a plethora of modular variables for lot's of different > things. > The use of variables with modular modular scope was also being discussed. > Their use in this particular system is worse than the use of abuse of > "globals" in the system. > > All of my experience prior to this contract has lead me to believe that the > fewer globals used the better. I felt that descrete functions without global > impact was the best design methodology. I pretty much have take this as > gospel and never strayed from the "true" path of functions with parameters > passed in and results returned. > > But other than "I've always done it that way" I don't have many specific > arguments against using massive global files. > > I think that arrays most certainly need to be global in scope and certain > variables are okay for modular scope (especially if these variables gain > dramatic performance increases in code) > > Of course I was slapped down pretty hard by the employees that created this > system and was told I didn't know what I was talking about. > > Any thoughts, one way or the other would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks.... > John Leipold > Access Data Consulting Corp. > > > > >