RPG and Programming

In my favorite novel, “Pride and Prejudice”, Elizabeth Bennet says archly to Darcy, “I have always seen a great similarity in the turn of our minds. We are each of an unsocial, taciturn disposition, unwilling to speak, unless we expect to say something that will amaze the whole room, and be handed down to posterity with all the eclat of a proverb.”

Perhaps a reason similar to this is why I have not been as faithful to this blog as I ought to be. I feel like I need to say something IMPORTANT. And INTERESTING. Sometimes, no topic seems important enough to grip my interest until I get home and go through all the other stuff a head of the house does after work, eat dinner and rest in front of the TV for a short time. (Hmm.. I’m beginning to sense a pattern here.) A little topic may come to mind at work, but by the time I get home, it’s gone. Even if I write it down, I then forget to look at the piece of paper.

The day-to-day life of a programmer is not really that interesting, unless he is absorbed in a project or problem.

The life of a maintenance programmer can be tedious when his mind is not fully occupied. I have a number of projects in process, but nearly all of them are at a stopping point. Not done, but at a point where my next step waits on the actions of another, usually a user.

There are no issues of cosmic importance to be resolved. I am writing new code in freeform RPG. I am not messing with the structure of old programs just to improve them. I convert them to RPGIV when I make modifications to them, but usually I do not attempt to get them all the way to freeform; with all the indicators dancing around in them, freeform usually ends up being an even worse mess than what I start with.

There are old fashioned date routines in many of the programs. I do not touch them unless the modifications have to do directly with date calculation. The basic calculations can be easily replaced with my date functions based on IBM APIs; but they don’t always plug in neatly, which means intensive testing that I don’t want to do when I only want to change a heading or tweak one or two lines of code.

There are two RPG programmers in our shop. We both code in freeform, so there are no areas of conflict there that would make life in our shop exciting.

Somehow, the areas of contention with other programmers (inhouse or online) like control break processing seem rather dull. I do what I want and no one is around to argue with me. (My wife gets after me because it sometimes seems like I like to argue..)

Of course, as I press on into my mid-60‘s, I suppose that decreased conflict is probably not a bad thing. Anything can happen, of course, but I see little likelihood of my job situation changing before I retire in another 10 or 15 years.

But maybe if I picked up on the little ideas that pop up during the day and run with them at night, I could be more productive. Maybe if I had a better way of holding onto them. Maybe if I could get a little spiral notebook.. or a netbook… or a tablet…

I have been reading and thinking about the future of my favored programming language and the computer platform upon which I use it. The latter has been the subject of an extended discussion in LinkedIn. Some feel that the naming of the machine is of little consequence, unless you use the wrong one. It is felt that to call it the AS/400 is inaccurate, since the AS/400 is not called that anymore- which is, of course, true. It is felt that RPG will not survive for an extended period of time because of its intimate connection via DDS (Data Description Specifications) with the 24 X 80 character display green-screen terminal. Others feel that newer innovations may allow it to survive, but only if it dispenses as quickly as possible with the fixed-format (“punch-card”) calculation specifications and move quickly to free-format. There are not many defenders of fixed-format RPG around, and those that use it are probably expected to turn in their coding sheets soon and retire. And, as always, proponents of each view have their own facts and anecdotes to support their view.

I could not hope to make much of an impression on that forum and accomplish anything more than stir up the pot of contention. It is much better to make a one-sided argument here. Anyone who cares to argue may feel free to do so. (more…)

It has been a long time since my last entry. Much has happened since then. I made two 2100 mile round trips by car back to Michigan, both of them in connection with my mother, who passed away in June at the age of 98. Other personal situations have cropped up too.

At my place of work, I continue attempting to gradually upgrade the system. In addition to my assigned projects and troubleshooting, I am attempting to use more modern techniques; but I find it interesting to look back and see what things I have tried and not tried to do.

One thing that comes to mind is that I am no longer determined to find a way to gradually move code to free-format. If I write new code, it will probably be in RPG-free; but I am no longer attempting to translate fixed format to free. The job is just too daunting; so many of the old programs are just hideously loaded with indicators, and to do a direct conversion, using Linoma’s RPG Toolbox, creates code that would, especially to a neophyte, be even more confusing than its fixed format parent. With proper use of the toolbox we can eliminate left-hand indicators while leaving it in fixed format, and the tool does a very nice job of cleaning things up.

In another context, I am making changes that effectively are advancing beyond RPGIV as presently constituted. Using IBM routines CEESCEN, CEEDAYS, and CEEDATE, I am trying to free the system from its self-imposed reliance upon a century that runs from 1961-2060 for 2-digit years, as well as the ILE RPG range of 1940-2039 for 2-digit years. The boldest move, of course, would be to change all date references in the data files to at least an 8-digit year, if not actual date formats; but in ancient code from multiple systems, that would take a prohibitive amount of time to convert hundreds of files and programs to do this. What I have done instead is create a number of programs based upon the IBM programs above to quickly do date conversions. In doing this, I am implementing a sliding century, such that the two-digit dates will always reference a century that references the current year as the 40^th year of the century. Currently, this means that my floating century is 1971-2070. In ten years, it will be 1981-2080.

A typical call would be: To convert Gregorian (MMDDYY) to Julian, we would call:

CALL ‘GTOJ’

PARM ING 6 0

PARM JUL 5 0

You may note that I am using the RPGIII/RPG400 style of calling the program rather than using the one-line form: CALLP(ING:JUL), which involves the creation of appropriate prototypes. The program GTOJ, for instance, does consist of a module DCONV, which sets up and runs the IBM routines, and module GTOJ, which sets up the input and output for DCONV. They are then combined into program GTOJ. All the routines ultimately use DCONV.

However, I could not see the point of the extensive housekeeping involved in making the programs that call GTOJ and the other programs modularized. You, of course, have to create prototypes for each of the programs (about 15 of them, at last count). Of course, I could put them all in one service program, which to my mind creates another layer of unnecessary complexity. The chief justifications for this seem to be performance and the ability to catch inconsistencies between parameters of the called and calling programs. To me, these are not sufficient reasons. In this installation, performance will never be an issue. Trust me. Our new machine (stupid word processor! I can’t put our favorite machine’s name here – OpenOffice keeps trying to capitalize it) runs at least 10 times as fast as the one it replaced. As for parameter checking, any errors last until the first test is run, after which they are corrected.

Another thing that I have cooled on is attempting to get away from MOVE, etc , in existing code. New code that I write contains very few MOVEs, except for enabling date arithmetic. I just don’t see the point in changing existing code to remove MOVE, unless by doing so I can make the code clearer. IBM has not implemented MOVE in freeform, so I don’t see a meaningful amount of existing RPG code being moved to freeform. This means that any RPG neophyte is going to have to learn to deal with both freeform and fixed RPG formats in his maintenance programming.

So time marches on. We continue to watch the progress of IBM with its initiatives regarding RPG, and we wait to see what impact it will have on our day-to-day work. In a small installation like ours, I don’t think we will ever be cutting edge.

But sometimes, to old codgers like me, it’s difficult to know just how far to go. In previous posts I have written about my vaguely negative feelings about freeform RPG, and I have written very clearly about how I feel about IBM’s unwillingness to implement the MOVE instruction in freeform RPG, pointing out how this can only hinder conversion of old code and diminish acceptance of the new RPG dialect.

Case in point, a program I was working on today. I was writing code to implement formatting of a six-digit account number based upon the rightmost 6 digits of an 11-digit number. It was based upon some old code (the usual situation where I work), but the old code was hideous. The old program consisted of about 15 lines of MOVE and MOVEL statements. I said, this has got to go.

So I contemplated the best way to do it. I could set up a data structure and put pieces of the account number into that, using EVALs or MOVEs,with dashes embedded as needed. But that didn’t seem quite elegant enough. I have been working harder to modernize my own code, so I finally broke it down to these two possibilities, as illustrated in this test program. The result I am aiming for is the number formatted as 01-234-5.

     H DFTACTGRP(*NO)   ACTGRP(*CALLER)
     D BACTNO          S             11  0 INZ(99999012345)
     D ACC6            S              8    INZ(*BLANKS)
     D NUM6            S              6  0 INZ(0)
     D ACCW            C                   '0  -   - '
     C/FREE
       EVALR ACC6 = %EDITW(%DEC(%SUBST(%EDITC(BACTNO:'X'):6:6):6:0):ACCW);
      /END-FREE
     C                   MOVE      BACTNO        NUM6
     C                   EVALR     ACC6 = %EDITW(NUM6:ACCW)
     C                   EVAL      *INLR= *ON

One way mixes the old and the new, with an old-fashioned MOVE to the smaller field, followed by a new-fangled %EDITW BIF using a predefined edit word. The other goes full-bore new age, with one grand set of embedded functions. To get the 11 digit number in string form so I can substring it, I use %EDITC with an X edit code, which does the conversion. Next, I %SUBST (substring) the last six characters. I then use %DEC to convert those six characters back to numeric. Finally, I apply the %EDITW function to format those six digits as desired. (I would be interested in finding out about a shorter way to do it.)

But I have a problem with it. In an earlier post, I pointed out that the ability to create long, complex functions in freeform is not necessarily a virtue. The mere fact that I felt the need to explain it here indicates that I am not comfortable with it. The code is short, but I do not feel that it is clear. On the other hand, while the the two-line version using MOVE is short and sweet, and uses a BIF, it would force me to get out of freeform to use the MOVE; stylistically, that also seems wanting.

Since the thrust of my thinking is in trying to modernize the code so future generations of converted C programmers won’t be freaked out by the C in column 6, I am leaning toward the one-line version. But I don’t like it. It’s ugly.

I was going to discourse on another topic, but a response to Buck (to whom I apologize, along with Bill, for being derelict in checking my site’s e-mail), who commented on my previous post, demands a reply. He feels that lack of formal education, while being a contributing factor, is only a contributing factor; rather, it is the midrange habit of being exposed to one programming language.

Actually, I am inclined to agree. The isolation in RPG is real. But we also do well to consider the background of the situation. The earliest IBM minicomputers, the System/3, had as its programming language RPG II. That was it. Small businesses who wanted that computer worked in that language- at least, I’m not aware of others used on the machine, besides assembler.

When the System/34 came out in 1977, the choice of compilers widened. BASIC, COBOL, and Fortran became available. But still, RPG dominated. I’m not surprised that Fortran and BASIC popularity did not rise. But COBOL was big at the time. However, RPG was already a business-oriented language, so COBOL was not really needed from that standpoint, and RPG was perhaps felt to be more terse and easier to learn. Then too, COBOL programmers were already being kept busy keeping the IBM mainframes humming, so there were probably not an excess of them floating around. COBOL has never been much more than a peripheral language on the IBM midrange; useful probably only to those whose business already depended in some way on COBOL, perhaps having COBOL talent already available.

In addition, and perhaps most important of all, The System/34 had no need to talk to the outside world unless it were to another IBM minicomputer or mainframe. There was no need to handle HTML; there was no HTML, because there was no Internet.

This is not to say that RPG was a perfect language. String manipulation beyond the realm of MOVE and MOVEL was very difficult. The two things the designers never got right until RPGIV came along were string manipulation and date arithmetic- being able to get the date 30 days after today, for instance. (One thing I will never comprehend is why they have never been able to enable multiple dimension arrays. In earlier days in a different environment, trying to emulate multiple dimension arrays was a real pain.)

But since the programmers had no other languages to work with, they bent RPG to their will. They created these plug-ugly array- manipulation routines to piece together strings. And they created complex routines to do date addition and date format conversion. We must not forget the famous “magic numbers” - to convert a date in month-day-year for mat to year-month-day, for instance:

MMDDYY MULT 10000.01 YYMMDD. I am still reminded of the RPG programmer of my acquaintance who, with the help of engineers, created sines and cosines and other functions in RPGII.

Now, there may have been elegant functions created in C for such purposes as string manipulation and mathematical functions. But once RPG routines were developed, the C functions were not needed. It really didn’t matter. They couldn’t use C anyway. If you knew what you were doing, you could write assembler subroutines – but that was it. I don’t think RPG couldn’t even call COBOL programs; at least the techniques were not well known for doing so.

So when ILE came around, much of the motivation for calling the now-available C routines was missing. We didn’t need them. RPG routines were already doing the work. Unless there were some performance considerations, programming managers would probably take a dim view of programmers who ripped out the ugly-but-tried-and-true RPG routines just for their own amusement. One could make a valid argument that those routines were a maintenance nightmare. But unless management had a good deal of foresight, this might be a difficult thing to prove to management’s satisfaction.

And yes, programmer inertia was also a factor. My shop has had IBM midrange machines since the 1970’s, and AS/400s since the 90’s. But the first RPGIV program was written on this system in 2007, by me after I arrived.

But now, the IBM midrange does have to deal with the outside world. My company already has an Internet presence, and we quite frankly don’t have to know PHP or Java or the other languages in vogue in order to make the business work. All we have to do is make sure our Internet provider gets the necessary data. And RPGIV provides the necessary tools to alleviate some of the issues that plagued us with earlier versions of RPG. If we need outside routines like APIs or C or Java or Rexx, they are easy enough to call. I have expressed myself in earlier posts about my ambivalent feelings about freeform RPG.

But mentioning freeform brings us to the topic of: How do our employers find replacements for us fixed-format loving old codgers when we retire? That is a topic for another time.

I have been thinking a bit about how our backgrounds, educational and otherwise, may determine at least to some extent the style we use in our programming and indeed perhaps the language we use.

One of my fellow programmers (about my age) graduated from college with a background in computers. Almost immediately he was able to find a position programming in COBOL, then in ALGOL, which is a block-structured language with a relatively free format. He continued to do well at various positions; ultimately, he came to where I work, with many years of experience in programming, but none in RPG. The style here could be described as a blend of RPGII, RPGIII, and RPG/400; fixed format to the core, loaded with indicators. He learned RPG from the ground up in that environment. Sometime after I came along, he was shown freeform RPG.

I, on the other hand learned RPGII from a book and practical experience. I had no computer background when I started to learn. I was of an inquisitive spirit, though, and I advanced in my use of RPG as the language itself improved. I too ultimately became acquainted with freeform RPG.

Now, who do you think uses freeform RPG whenever he can, especially on new programs? You might have guessed it was my partner- if you did, you’d be right. RPG was actually stifling to him; given the freedom to use free format RPG along with the BIFs that work well with it, he has been liberated. On the other hand, as you may judge from this blog, I just have not seen the light or the point. When I write code for new programs, it is in fixed format RPGIV.

We learned to love the way we learned programming, and so our preference now is to do it the way have always learned it, just better.

Illustrating the point that the way we learn to program is greatly influenced by our programming origins was a discussion I just read on an RPG forum about the significance of certain characters when writing CL (Control Language on the AS/400). Instead of indicating a “not equal” test by the common expression *NE, the code used the combination ^=, where the ^ is really a character I can’t find on my keyboard, but looks like the upper-right-hand corner of a rectangle with the top leg longer than the right. The character, as it turns out, is the “logical not”, a character often used in Boolean algebra.

Now, I don’t know who originated that code. Some experienced programmers, though, just did not know what it meant. Therein may lie a tale.

During the time I learned, many if not most of my fellow programmers were not products of any kind of computer science curriculum. They did not learn BASIC or Fortran first, and usually not COBOL, though this was a bit more common. They learned RPG as their first language. They did not learn “computer science concepts”; many, like me, either never attended college or did so only briefly. They may have started as a computer operator, or maybe at another position in their company. Usually it was a small company; it had the smallest capacity IBM computer available, the System/3, or System/32, or System/34. Something about the programming process intrigued or excited them; they persevered, and they advanced.

As time went on, though, and RPG increased in importance, people with a background in computers and computer science began to program RPG. For a long time, they would prove to be stifled if they expected to program like they originally learned to program in other languages. And where the original programmers may have simply accepted, for example, the RPG cycle, and comprehended it entirely, by the time the System/38 came around, programmers who started learning RPG as RPGIII on the System/38 evidently found it mind-boggling.

I can’t count the number of times I have found a test for LR (last record) in the RPG detail cycle in code (usually written by programmers who came from the 38) using an input or update primary file. Unless explicitly set on with a SETON instruction, the LR indicator will never be on during the detail cycle. A programmer who started with RPG II would automatically know this – it would be a part of his upbringing. A programmer who started with a background in computers later would not necessarily know this. This would cause problems if the programmer intended to base output on this indicator test. Usually it would mean that last record calculations and total output would be missing.

Another difference in outlook comes with file processing. A programmer raised on RPGII (usually in a small shop) doesn’t mind the system reading files (primary and secondary) without him telling it to. But I have noticed in discussion forums that people raised on other programming languages (usually learned in college) seem to get bent out of shape if they don’t explicitly get to do the file reading themselves. They don’t really comprehend that this really is quite an advanced feature, much closer to SQL than Pascal.

It would be interesting to find a survey of programmers that told what level of education they had when they first started programming professionally. I would suspect that as a group, RPG programmers would have a slightly lower level of educational advancement than, say, a C or Java programmer. This would especially be true if they surveyed the most experienced RPG programmers. But then, it is results that matter. RPG programmers do not write compilers – we process information so that humans may comprehend it.

The rather slow acceptance of freeform RPG since its inception has been intriguing to me. For that reason, a recent discussion on  the RPGIV forum has been interesting. Bob Cozzi, a well-known RPG expert, posed a question about how long it took to actually code the implementation of freeform to Hans Boldt, who evidently was on the team at IBM that developed the original implementation.
Hans said that it only took about 1 PM (person month?) to actually code it, but considerably more time was spent in planning. I can believe this. The planning discussions must have been particularly interesting.
One of the biggest things that have slowed acceptance of freeform was the non-implementation of MOVE and MOVEL. This is also the opinion of Cozzi and others in the field. Mr. Boldt touched on this and other issues.
Boldt’s first design included implementation of all opcodes. Others in the group, one in particular, argued vociferously against it. Boldt eventually came around to their way of thinking. As he said, “That design point meant we didn’t have to worry about those goofy multi-part factors.”  (I’m not clear on what that means, exactly. But anyway…..)
Once that was established it was just a matter of deciding which to implement and which not. GOTO was thrown out because, as stated in Nicklaus Wirth’s famous title for Edsger Dijkstra’s article on GOTO, “Go To Statement Considered Harmful”. I could quibble about that, but since it’s been probably 4 or 5 years since I last put a GOTO in a program, there wouldn’t be much point in arguing.
With MOVEL and MOVE however, Mr. Boldt doesn’t understand why people are so attached to those opcodes. He says, “It’s hard to see how these opcodes can be missed given the other options available by free-form opcodes.”
To a certain extent, I agree with his comments. I myself have used MOVE/MOVEL very seldom in the last several years. New opcodes have for the most part been very workable. Using EVAL and many BIFs, I get along very nicely. When EVAL gets a little tedious, I often create data structures to put together data in the desired patterns.
The problem is, I am talking about new code. Old code from the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s did not have all this neat stuff available. About all you had for data manipulation was MOVE and MOVEL, along with their cousin MOVEA, along with perhaps data structures. From my observations over the years, I would say most programmers did not avail themselves of the help even data structures could provide; they did their work with MOVE(L). We are not talking about an easily disposable opcode like FORCE; we are talking about opcodes that appeared in almost every non-trivial RPG program before RPGIV, and most of the trivial ones. They used the opcodes to change data types (from alphanumeric to numeric and back). Above all, they used MOVE to manipulate strings, piecing together long strings from five or six (or more) smaller ones. One can complain that this is a very kludgy way of doing things, but this is all we had to work with. I would suspect that there are millions, if not tens of millions, of MOVEs in the legacy code sitting on today’s AS/400s (or whatever we’re supposed to be calling them today).
So what do we do in freeform once MOVE is taken away from us? As pointed out in the post I referenced yesterday or the day before, we must choose among 10 or 15 alternatives, depending on what we want to do - which in a sense is a demonstration of the power of the opcode. There is no easy conversion; it is not the same thing as changing  KEY   CHAIN    MASTER  to CHAIN KEY MASTER; . I don’t think even artificial intelligence could do even close to a good job of determining the best conversion; Linoma tried, but some MOVEs are just untranslatable without human eyes and brains to analyze them.
Therein lies the problem. If you rule out MOVE in freeform, a human must determine the best way to translate it to freeform. It simply isn’t financially practical to spend resources changing massive amounts of fixed-format code to freeform by hand, and the utilities available for automatic conversion do not do a clean job. You can use Linoma’s software; you can use Websphere’s conversion facility, which does not handle the MOVE and does not even attempt to do the indentation; there may be other utilities around. In the end, to convert legacy code, you can convert it to a degree automatically, but you will still be left with MOVEs to contend with by hand. You end up with ugly flipflops between free and fixed format that may even be harder to read and deal with than the original fixed format code.
It is very nice to say, that when we modify a program, we will also change it to freeform. But that is a slow way of converting what might be hundreds, or even thousands, of programs on your system. Remember, converting a MOVE to something else is not the same as reformatting a CHAIN; it must be carefully tested.
So, while freeform may ultimately win out, it could have been done a lot more readily if MOVE had been implemented in freeform. The more I think about it, I wonder if someone’s ego got in the way, someone who said, “I am going to teach these plebeians how programming SHOULD be done, instead of using these operations that no other reputable programming language uses.”  (Down, XFOOT, down!!!  Don’t bite him!)
And to think it could have been avoided by allowing the conversion of  MOVE  STRING1   STRING2  to the freeform equivalent:  move   string1    string2.

I didn’t think I’d be considering free-format RPG so soon as a final solution for the current RPG programs on the system at work (some of which date back to the 70’s), but a number of interesting events have taken place.
Our IBM representative made us aware of a software package that accomplishes the conversion of RPGII, RPGIII, and RPG400 programs into true RPGIV. This means (among other things) ditching the left-hand indicators and attempting to really use more modern operation codes. If you are at all familiar with what would be necessary, you can appreciate how difficult this task would be without some kind of automation. The painstaking code changes and testing would be incredible on a code base of any size.
This package is called RPG Toolbox, from Linoma Software.
So we downloaded the trial version, which allows 10 source conversions from another RPG dialect - or even RPGIV that has simply been converted from an older format using IBM’s CVTRPGSRC utility. CVTRPGSRC simply reformats old code into RPGIV syntax; it does not attempt to modernize it. We converted a source member with a lot of left-hand indicators, and we were impressed how it converted into a reasonably neat format without those indicators. What really impressed me was that it would attempt to convert a series of MOVE statements, which was commonly the method used to piece together larger fields, into EVAL statements. This could be a dangerous technique, but the RPG Toolbox utility carefully analyzes the code to make sure it is safe. In the manual, it describes how it makes decisions about code conversion; if one is interested in this product, that person would do well to download and read the manual before making decisions about what the program should do in the course of conversion.
I also had an inspiration- why not use it to convert RPG IV to freeform? In earlier posts, I have declared my reservations about how valuable freeform is. But, if it’s easy, why not live dangerously? So I tried converting one of the RPGIV programs in my file cross-reference system to freeform. The results were impressive. It looked VERY good. The more I looked at it, the more I liked it. So I said to myself, why not convert ALL our code to freeform?
But then my younger cohort brought me back down to earth. He wasn’t so sure that would be a good idea. So we converted the old-format code referred to above into freeform. The results were messy. There was much code that simply could not be converted, often involving the MOVE and MOVEL opcodes. (I have also commented on this previously.) When this happens, the free-format code is enclosed in a /FREE - /END-FREE set of compiler directives and the code drops back into fixed format. Switching back and forth between free and fixed can be maddeningly ugly.
So I have backed off the idea of a total conversion to freeform RPG. But we still feel that converting our code to a clean RPGIV that uses as much as possible of RPGIV’s modern syntax and opcodes would certainly be a good thing; and it appears that it would be relatively safe. We have ordered the software. Where the conversion of a program to freeform would not create too messy a result, we can still convert it.
I was also surprised to learn how quickly the most experienced one on our crew would take to freeform. He first started programming in ALGOL; so freeform is not really that much of a leap for him. He has in the past several weeks written new programs in freeform RPG, of his own free will. My other partner has a Pascal/Java background; so freeform would come “naturally” to him. I am the one who will take some getting used to the idea.

I work on code that, when I came to work for my client, was essentially RPGIII/RPG400 or older. Some of the code had been implemented way back in the 1970’s and was migrated forward as newer machines were installed. And the code showed it. (I have found interesting the large number of 80 and 96 byte files in some of the systems, remnants of old punchcard processing programs.) You haven’t lived until you’ve attempted to update a program that has grown over the years to be a 10000+ line, indicator-laden monster. If you’ve been away from the program awhile and you need to make a non-trivial change, you need to spend part of a day, at least, reviewing the program’s processing.

I am normally conservative about program changes. I generally do not rip apart code and rewrite it, especially if it is not broken. But if a program is to be revised, I do generally at least convert it to RPGIV before making even a minor change. As a phrase used by one of my favorite literary characters (Anne of Green Gables) says, doing this allows “more scope for imagination”.

I was making code changes for a conversion project I was working on when I came across a particular program I had seen before and shook my head at. But for some reason, this time something snapped. I just HAD to change a particular chunk of code, even though the code in fact worked. No errors. But how far to change it? I will explain what I did. In the end, what I do will likely be seen as good by some, too intrusive by others, and  not radical enough by still others.

(more…)