6 ms·

And I thought 'EZ-C' was bad. Still, it was the worst I've used. As far as I know, a large retailer still uses the data format and libraries from an awful "4t

by jbgreer 13y ago

And I thought 'EZ-C' was bad. Still, it was the worst I've used. As far as I know, a large retailer still uses the data format and libraries from an awful "4th generation language" called 'EZ-C'. Fun parts: There were a fixed number of variables. All variables were global. There were two control structures: if/then and goto Imagine a Point-Of-Sale application written in such. A 100,000+ line Point-of-Sale program. Imagine the fun of chasing down re-use of a variable with no debugger. EZ-C was supposed to be a simple language with built-in screen handling (via curses) and data file handling (with variant records and multiple indices). The theory was that you wrote code in EZ-C and debugged it, since the simpler syntax would reduce errors. EZ-C came with a program that would comple your source and link against EZ-C libraries. The best of all possible worlds - a nice interpreted language that compiled for blazing fast speed! That was the theory. In practice, the compiler was broken, and so all programs ran via an interpreter called 'dparse'. So (and I can hear you saying) I started to do what many of you would do: I started to write my own parser with the idea of building a compiler for the language. And that's when Mike, one of the older developers/admins/jack-of-all-trades/wise elders, stopped me. "Don't do that," he said, "because if you do that, we'll never stop writing in EZ-C." And so I stopped immediately.

jloughry 13y ago
> Fun parts: There were a fixed number of variables. All variables were global. There were two control structures: if/then and goto It's just like BANCStar! I forgot to mention that one of the most useful features of the LIST annotator was to generate a cross-reference listing. That feature alone made the practice of re-using working-storage variables much safer, because you could compare the cross-reference indexes of two different programs at a glance easily. I strongly encourage the development of that kind of safety/error-detection/error-prevention tool in any environment whenever possible. Seriously, your Mike sounds like a wise person.

by jbgreer 13y ago

jloughry 13y ago

> Fun parts: There were a fixed number of variables. All variables were global. There were two control structures: if/then and goto It's just like BANCStar! I forgot to mention that one of the most useful features of the LIST annotator was to generate a cross-reference listing. That feature alone made the practice of re-using working-storage variables much safer, because you could compare the cross-reference indexes of two different programs at a glance easily. I strongly encourage the development of that kind of safety/error-detection/error-prevention tool in any environment whenever possible. Seriously, your Mike sounds like a wise person.