<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time Marches On</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rpgandprogramming.com/2010/08/time-marches-on/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rpgandprogramming.com/2010/08/time-marches-on/</link>
	<description>Not Role Playing Games, but the RPG programming language and the craft of programming.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 00:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://www.rpgandprogramming.com/2010/08/time-marches-on/#comment-653</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:40:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rpgandprogramming.com/?p=236#comment-653</guid>
		<description>I don't ever translate fixed to /free.  Fixed RPG is a separate language, with its own nuances.  /free RPG is a separate language, with its own nuances.  Simply re-formatting it as /free doesn't magically transform the fixed form nuances into /free form nuances.  MOVE is one of those op-codes that is so overloaded that it can be very difficult to understand unless you are intimately familiar with the fields involved.  Is MOVE CHAR5 CHAR7 intentionally leaving those two bytes intact, or did the original programmer mean MOVE(P)?  Not easy enough to automate, that's for sure, no matter what toolkit is involved.

It's interesting that you don't use service programs.  Yes, they do add another layer of complexity but for me at least, the calculus falls in favour.  I probably need to take a step back.  I like functions.  Rather than code CALL GTOJ PARM PARM, I like to see eval julian = gtoj(mmddyy)  I use functions because I think in functions, so the mapping makes personal sense to me.  

The chances that I'm going to use this function only once are vanishingly small, so I tend to put utility functions like this into a service program.  I've adopted a single signature rather than trying to keep multiple signatures and that has made my life a lot simpler.

I don't generally use functions vs CALL in order to tweak performance.  In our line of work, the only way tweaking calcs will buy you performance is when you've already tweaked the I/O.  I can recall one or two times in 32 years where I had to optimise calculations.  All the rest of my optimisation efforts go into reducing I/O.  Makes sense, right?  How many million calculations can the CPU do while it waits for the platter to spin around to the right sector?

I like functions because I think that way, and 10 characters just aren't enough to name a function properly.  I respect that other people have a different opinion, which is one reason I like reading your adventures.  Another view is always a good thing to have.

Thanks for sharing and thanks for this latest.  Always something to think about here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t ever translate fixed to /free.  Fixed RPG is a separate language, with its own nuances.  /free RPG is a separate language, with its own nuances.  Simply re-formatting it as /free doesn&#8217;t magically transform the fixed form nuances into /free form nuances.  MOVE is one of those op-codes that is so overloaded that it can be very difficult to understand unless you are intimately familiar with the fields involved.  Is MOVE CHAR5 CHAR7 intentionally leaving those two bytes intact, or did the original programmer mean MOVE(P)?  Not easy enough to automate, that&#8217;s for sure, no matter what toolkit is involved.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s interesting that you don&#8217;t use service programs.  Yes, they do add another layer of complexity but for me at least, the calculus falls in favour.  I probably need to take a step back.  I like functions.  Rather than code CALL GTOJ PARM PARM, I like to see eval julian = gtoj(mmddyy)  I use functions because I think in functions, so the mapping makes personal sense to me.  </p>
<p>The chances that I&#8217;m going to use this function only once are vanishingly small, so I tend to put utility functions like this into a service program.  I&#8217;ve adopted a single signature rather than trying to keep multiple signatures and that has made my life a lot simpler.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t generally use functions vs CALL in order to tweak performance.  In our line of work, the only way tweaking calcs will buy you performance is when you&#8217;ve already tweaked the I/O.  I can recall one or two times in 32 years where I had to optimise calculations.  All the rest of my optimisation efforts go into reducing I/O.  Makes sense, right?  How many million calculations can the CPU do while it waits for the platter to spin around to the right sector?</p>
<p>I like functions because I think that way, and 10 characters just aren&#8217;t enough to name a function properly.  I respect that other people have a different opinion, which is one reason I like reading your adventures.  Another view is always a good thing to have.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing and thanks for this latest.  Always something to think about here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

