Future reuse of code

[Roedy Green]

Re: Future reuse of code

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:12:10 GMT, rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote or quoted :
[color=blue]
>Perhaps most amazing, this program was, and still is, written in...
>Clipper.[/color]

This suggests another general principle. If you are interested in
longevity, write in a language supported by as many vendors as
possible. We have seen the demise of dBase, as the ball was passed and
fumbled with the decline of Ashton Tate.


Wirth might suggest always using a language simple enough that you
could fund your own compiler if necessary.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

[Joona I Palaste]

Re: Future reuse of code

Buster Copley <buster@none.co m> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:[color=blue]
> John D. wrote:[color=green]
>> james.cameron@b indereng.com.au (James Cameron) wrote in message news:<45ab836a. 0308031802.2c96 85eb@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=darkred]
>>>Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
>>>reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This will be a
>>>major factor in selecting the development language. Any comments on
>>>past experience, research articles, comments on the matter would be
>>>much appreciated. I suspect something like C would be the best based
>>>on comments I received from the VB news group.[/color]
>>
>> The best language to ensure future reuse of the code is english.
>> Whatever programming language you chose always remember to document
>> your code.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Hey, be careful! Not everyone's an anglophone. Other than that,
> very well said.[/color]

I, for one, learned BASIC before I learned English. I remember being
pleased that "if... then" meant the same thing as English as it did in
BASIC.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"As we all know, the hardware for the PC is great, but the software sucks."
- Petro Tyschtschenko

[Joona I Palaste]

Re: Future reuse of code

LX-i <LXi0007@netsca pe.net> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:[color=blue]
> James Cameron wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You're a great filmmaker - why are you switching to programming? :)[/color]

Is this the same James Cameron who created the pptpclient SourceForge
project?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/

[Richard Bos]

Re: Future reuse of code

lvirden@yahoo.c om wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> According to Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl>:
> :"jce" <defaultuser@ho tmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :> COBOL has had a resurgence recently - question is whether it will hold up
> :> for 15 more years....Probab ly will....but you have to hope that the
> :> compilers/$$$ keep up or you'll just have something that works and isn't
> :> bleeding edge (what's wrong with that?).
> :
> :I don't know what's wrong with not being bleeding-edge (apart form Not
> :Being Cool In The Eyes Of The Press, to which I say: Pfffrrrrttt...) ,
>
> Well, another thing is finding adequately trained staff, training materials,
> etc.[/color]

Yes, that's another good point against being bleeding edge. You cannot
possibly have _adequately_ trained staff for a language that's less than
five years old, unless your definition of adequate is "just about good
enough to battle through the project", rather than, as it should be,
"quite good enough to get things done the right way".
[color=blue]
> Trying to find resources to get things done in the 'stable' languages
> becomes harder (and more costly) as time goes on.[/color]

Snigger.

Richard

[Jim Morcombe]

Re: Future reuse of code

James

How much time will be spect maintaining the code?

If the code willbe stable and not maintained too often, then development
time will be more important than maintenance time.

However, if it will be maintained quite frequently and you don't mind a
longer development time, just go with "C" or Cobol, depending on the type of
application.

If development cost is critical, then just choose any development language
that is not undergoing a lot of chnge at the moment. Probably one that you
have skills to use already.

Jim


James Cameron <james.cameron@ bindereng.com.a u> wrote in message
news:45ab836a.0 308031802.2c968 5eb@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
> reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This will be a
> major factor in selecting the development language. Any comments on
> past experience, research articles, comments on the matter would be
> much appreciated. I suspect something like C would be the best based
> on comments I received from the VB news group.
>
> Thanks for the help in advance
>
> James Cameron[/color]

[Peter E.C. Dashwood]

Re: Future reuse of code




"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.c a> wrote in message
news:3F30533D.E 76727A5@shaw.ca ...[color=blue]
>
>
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Nope. Disagree strongly. The days of procedural code and the necessity[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > maintain it are nearly over. It is very wrong NOW to design systems[/color][/color]
around a[color=blue][color=green]
> > particular language.
> >
> > The days of the "Waterfall" and "One Language Wonder" system development
> > are, thankfully, in rapid decline.[/color]
>
> Now don't shilly shally - your new 'audience' might find it enlightening.
> "Design systems around a particular language" and "One Language Wonder".
>
> Spell it out simply as percentages :-
>
> - Languages you use on a daily basis - x%
> - Languages & Tools you use to produce your Components on a daily basis -[/color]
x%[color=blue]
>
> Jimmy
>[/color]
Sorry Jimmy,

I'd like to respond but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Percentages based on what I do personally are of no consequence. Percentages
based on the last commercial installation I managed are of little
consequence either. Today's percentages could vary wildly tomorrow, and
there is no guarantee that a percentage of development true today will
continue to be true indefinitely.

I can say that the results from both above would involve SQL Server, VB,
Perl, Java and COBOL. But so what?

I don't see any "shilly-shally" in my post.

My point was that it is wrong (today) to design systems around the
capabilities of a given procedural language (irrespective of what that
language is...). As for "One Language wonder"... well, that is just an
extension of the same idea. In the past it was possible to get by on one
language. It isn't anymore, yet there are still people who, rather than
simply expand their skill set, cling frantically to the notion that THEIR
language is wonderful and can do ANYTHING better than any other language.
(hence, "One Language Wonder"...)

We SHOULD be designing systems based on Business Functionality, rather than
computer programming languages.

I contend that Component Based Development is a really good way to do this,
and it happens to be the best way to ensure re-use of code (in my opinion)
which is what the topic is about.

Maybe you read more into it than I intended or maybe I just don't understand
what you are driving at.

Pete.

[LX-i]

Re: Future reuse of code

Joona I Palaste wrote:
[color=blue]
> LX-i <LXi0007@netsca pe.net> scribbled the following
> on comp.lang.c:
>[color=green]
>>James Cameron wrote:
>>^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
>>You're a great filmmaker - why are you switching to programming? :)[/color]
>
>
> Is this the same James Cameron who created the pptpclient SourceForge
> project?[/color]

I have no idea. :)


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ AIM: LXi0007 ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ E-mail: LXi0007@Netscap e.net ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please post if you wish to be contacted privately ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Howard Brazee]

Re: Future reuse of code


On 6-Aug-2003, Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.hel sinki.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I, for one, learned BASIC before I learned English. I remember being
> pleased that "if... then" meant the same thing as English as it did in
> BASIC.[/color]

I'm glad you shared that. I have wondered how often this is true.

I have heard of pilots who know how to speak all the English that they need to
talk to Air Traffic Controllers and other aspects of their job (every
international airport except for Montreal's speaks English) - but don't know
English hardly at all for non-business purposes.

[Aleksi Kallio]

Re: Future reuse of code

>>I, for one, learned BASIC before I learned English. I remember being[color=blue][color=green]
>>pleased that "if... then" meant the same thing as English as it did in
>>BASIC.[/color]
> I'm glad you shared that. I have wondered how often this is true.[/color]

Sounds familiar. When we started to learn English at school we had
competitions where you had to come up with word that begins with the
letter that the previous word ended with. My team won always because I
knew so many BASIC commands and C64 related terms - but I had no idea
what was the meaning of those words outside the context of C64. :)

[Bob Wolfe]

Re: Future reuse of code

qed@pobox.com (Paul Hsieh) wrote:
[color=blue]
>james.cameron@ bindereng.com.a u (James Cameron) wrote:[color=green]
>> Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
>> reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This will be a
>> major factor in selecting the development language. Any comments on
>> past experience, research articles, comments on the matter would be
>> much appreciated. I suspect something like C would be the best based
>> on comments I received from the VB news group.[/color]
>
>Well, C will be around in 15 years in the same sense that COBOL is
>still with us today. But probably something that should be pointed
>out is that there are very few C compilers out there that don't also
>support C++. There are very few if any universities teaching computer
>science that teach C but not C++. So you could easily make a
>strategic decision between C and C++ according to what makes sense for
>you today, and certainly both will still exist in some way shape or
>form 15 years from now.
>
>That said, Java certainly has enough momentum today to suggest it will
>probably exist in 15 years. Though whether or not it will supplant
>C++ or other alternatives is too hard to see. The problem with Java
>is that if it fails to continue to gain momentum, it might very
>quickly be relegated to that of a niche market. I won't make a call
>as to which way I think it will go, but I think its fair to say that
>both (dominance over C++, or relegation to a niche) are possible. I
>think its very unlikely that it will completely disappear in 15 years.
>
>COBOL and Pascal (the other groups you crossposted this message to)
>will decrease in usage over time, not increase. There is absolutely
>no new serious development being done in either language.[/color]

Paul:

I'm curious......ca n you provide me with a reference to the source of
the above comment?

Did you read that in a magazine article or was it a reference from a
Gartner Group study?

I am indeed curious.

[color=blue]
> In 15
>years, Pascal will probably be completely dead, and the COBOL
>community will be reduced even from the size of today's community
>(human mortality alone will guarantee this.)[/color]


Bob Wolfe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
When replying by e-mail, make sure that you correct the e-mail address.
Check out The Flexus COBOL Page at http://www.flexus.com

[Danny Maijer]

Re: Future reuse of code


"James Cameron" <james.cameron@ bindereng.com.a u> schreef in bericht
news:45ab836a.0 308031802.2c968 5eb@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
> reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road.[/color]

How about even 20 years down the road ? One of my former colleagues had a
crush on date handling. Up to now I am still using his code (with no changes
made ever since) in new applications and when maintaining other apps. His
coding even supports the gregorian date change in 1560......I never needed
that however.

That code was written for a NCR IMOS system. In plain ANSII cobol. As you
will read in the other replies on this thread there are some standards such
piece of code needs to meet. Like no user interface (only parameter
handling) and plain standard coding (no proprietry routines should be used).

I have put lots of this kind of routines in Fujitsu Cobol DLL's which makes
them accessable for other languages too....To be frankly honest, I never
looked at the source code of these routines. I dont need to, they work !
(Thanks to Robert Veldwijk).

Regards, Danny.

BTW, When I started programming in COBOL I was warned to upgrade my skills
to other languages (which I did) because COBOL would be dead and gone within
5 years of that moment. That was 1984......The main part of my business is
still COBOL today :)

[docdwarf@panix.com]

Re: Future reuse of code

In article <bgrehi$btg$1@r eader10.wxs.nl> ,
Danny Maijer <info@liveartis ts.com> wrote:

[snip]
[color=blue]
>BTW, When I started programming in COBOL I was warned to upgrade my skills
>to other languages (which I did) because COBOL would be dead and gone within
>5 years of that moment. That was 1984......The main part of my business is
>still COBOL today :)[/color]

Oh, I *cannot* resist... I don't remember where I first read it or to whom
I should attribute it but the statement was something along the lines of
'I was told to learn new stuff because COBOL was a dying language and
would soon be replaced. The next week I was told that Neil Armstrong had
walked on the moon.'

DD

[Peter E.C. Dashwood]

Re: Future reuse of code


"Wolfgang Riedel" <wolfgang.riede l@development.r etarus.de> wrote in message
news:3F313DDE.4 D784F0B@develop ment.retarus.de ...[color=blue]
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.c a> wrote in message
> > news:3F30533D.E 76727A5@shaw.ca ...[/color]
>
> <snip>
>[color=green]
> > We SHOULD be designing systems based on Business Functionality, rather[/color][/color]
than[color=blue][color=green]
> > computer programming languages.[/color]
>
> not all programming is Business
>[color=green]
> >
> > I contend that Component Based Development is a really good way to do[/color][/color]
this,[color=blue][color=green]
> > and it happens to be the best way to ensure re-use of code (in my[/color][/color]
opinion)[color=blue][color=green]
> > which is what the topic is about.[/color]
>
> <snip>
>[color=green]
> > Pete.[/color]
>
> You're aware, this is there some 10 (?) years?
> Remember SOM, OpenDoc, OS400 to just cite IBM?
> Most were language-independent.
> All but one gone.
> Make it better next time?
> Sure!
> XML!
> (hah!)
>
> Wolfgang[/color]

[Peter E.C. Dashwood]

Re: Future reuse of code

Ignore the other post that was sent accidentally...

Comments below.

"Wolfgang Riedel" <wolfgang.riede l@development.r etarus.de> wrote in message
news:3F313DDE.4 D784F0B@develop ment.retarus.de ...[color=blue]
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > "James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.c a> wrote in message
> > news:3F30533D.E 76727A5@shaw.ca ...[/color]
>
> <snip>
>[color=green]
> > We SHOULD be designing systems based on Business Functionality, rather[/color][/color]
than[color=blue][color=green]
> > computer programming languages.[/color]
>
> not all programming is Business[/color]

No it isn't. But for the purpose of this discussion we were looking at a
Business Application. Read the whole thread.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >
> > I contend that Component Based Development is a really good way to do[/color][/color]
this,[color=blue][color=green]
> > and it happens to be the best way to ensure re-use of code (in my[/color][/color]
opinion)[color=blue][color=green]
> > which is what the topic is about.[/color]
>
> <snip>
>[color=green]
> > Pete.[/color]
>
> You're aware, this is there some 10 (?) years?
> Remember SOM, OpenDoc, OS400 to just cite IBM?
> Most were language-independent.
> All but one gone.
> Make it better next time?[/color]

I see no connection with anything you mentioned and component (ActiveX or
Java Bean) technology.

What is your point?
[color=blue]
> Sure!
> XML!
> (hah!)
>[/color]
XML is an important part of the future of IT.

Pete.

[RH]

Re: Future reuse of code

[color=blue]
> That said, Java certainly has enough momentum today to suggest it will
> probably exist in 15 years. Though whether or not it will supplant
> C++ or other alternatives is too hard to see.[/color]

Java won't supplant C++ or other languages that create very fast, linkable
executables; even with JIT compilers and native compilers. C# is Java's
closest competition.
[color=blue]
> The problem with Java
> is that if it fails to continue to gain momentum, it might very
> quickly be relegated to that of a niche market. I think its very unlikely[/color]
that it will completely disappear in 15 years.

This is probably true, considering it's Open Source architecture and its
backing by some very major players (ex: Oracle).[color=blue]
>
> COBOL and Pascal (the other groups you crossposted this message to)
> will decrease in usage over time, not increase. There is absolutely
> no new serious development being done in either language. In 15
> years, Pascal will probably be completely dead,[/color]

This isn't quite true. Delphi is OO Pascal, and a very nice language I
might add (the software engineer also wrote the C# language).

It's taking a back seat to the more popular web-services oriented languages
but it's still an excellent alternative to C++ and/or Visual Basic. And it
runs on Linux.