A Matter of Style – Labels…

As much as possible I try to make it obvious from a variable label, what type of variable it is and wherever possible, what other variable or control block it is related to.

Constants

I start variable names for constants with a # sign, thus:

#NAME DC C'NAME'

If a variable starting with a # sign is on the receiving end of an instruction, it is wrong because I should not be modifying constants!

Equates

I start equated value names with an @ sign, thus:

@ONE   EQU   1
@FLAG1 EQU   X'80'

For equated symbols that define a length, I add the suffix ‘_LEN’ to the symbol name, thus:

FIELD1      DS    CL8
@FIELD1_LEN EQU   *-FIELD1

That way, it is obvious in the code that I am referring to an equated length value, for example:

          LA    R1,@FIELD1_LEN        Get field length in R1

It it obvious that I intend to load the field length and not the field address into the register but having the _LEN suffix ensures that I get the length and do not accidentally code the field address instead.

Equate/Field relationship

I prefer to ‘tie’ equated values for a field to the field they relate to by using a naming convention that uses the field name as part of the equate symbol, thus:

FIELD1         DS  C
@FIELD1_YES    EQU C'Y'
@FIELD1_NO     EQU C'N'
@FIELD1_NOTSET EQU X'00'

Then in code I would write something like this:

          CLI   FIELD1,@FIELD1_YES
          BE   DO_YES
          CLI   FIELD1,@FIELD1_NO
          BE   DO_NO
          B     NOT_SET

 

Similar code would apply to setting the field value, only use equated symbols that are related to the target field. This convention ensures that you are only setting and testing for values actually defined for the field.

About the only exception to this rule that I use is the use of the following common equated symbols:

@YES    EQU   C'Y'
@NO     EQU   C'N'
@POSTED EQU   X'40'

@YES and @NO should be obvious, @POSTED is to test an ECB posted bit flag,E.G:

          TM    ECB1,@POSTED           Is ECB posted?
          BO    DONE

 

Field/DSECT relationship

When I am creating my own DSECTS I prefer to prefix the name of each field within the DSECT with the DSECT name and an underscore, thus:

SOMEBLOK DSECT
SOMEBLOK_FIELD1 DS CL8
SOMEBLOK_FIELD2 DS F
@SOMEBLOK_LEN   EQU *-SOMEBLOK

Using this standard makes it easy when reading source code to determine who owns a field. There is no confusion. The length equate for the control block also follows my convention of adding _LEN to the end and prefixing the equate symbol with an @ sign to avoid ambiguity in the executable code.

The exception to the rule…

I do allow for one exception to this rule though and that is for a program’s working storage. Typically I prefix working storage fields with the prefix STG_ (short for ‘storage’) although you can use anything you want, to identify working storage fields, for example W_ etc. It is preferable to use the underscore as part of the name to avoid situations where a field name ‘might’ happen to start with whatever prefix you are using. For example if you use just W as your working storage field prefix, is WORKF1 a field in your working storage or somewhere else? Using this convention, STG_WORKF1 or W_WORKF1 are obviously part of the code’s working storage. And again, the convention ensures that you are using the field you intend and not a WORK1 field defined somewhere else that might allow the program to assemble but my then fail at execution time because the storage it refers to is not addressable or it is addressable but it’s the wrong field and messes up some other code (good luck finding that one!).

Summary

Whatever conventions you use, the aim is to make it less likely to introduce errors when developing the code and to make it much easier to read, and locate field owners several months later when someone else has to try to follow, understand and debug or modify your code.

 

 

 

 

A Matter of Style…

There are probably as many ways to write a program as there are programmers in the world, more if you accept that a program is solution or part thereof, to a problem and could be written in more than one language, each of which causes the writer to adopt differing styles.

So basically, there’s more than one way to skin a cat!

Now I’m not saying that the style of assembler programming that I have developed over the years is the best but I think it satisfies many of the requirements that I will cover in what I hope will be a short series of articles. Let’s put it this way, unless someone tells me different, I’ll tend to try to influence any code that I work in towards my preferred style although there are reasons for NOT doing that, for example to maintain the existing style or coding standards since a mix can make things worse.

SO! Why is style important?

Sometimes it isn’t. You may need to write a quick, one off, one use program to solve a problem. As long as it does the job, does style really matter? Well, it depends. If the code is simple then probably not but what if the code is complex? Then making the code at least readable and logical makes sense since if you get it wrong the first time through, it will be a lot easier to diagnose the problem and correct the code.

But let’s consider the more common situation where you are developing a program or even multiple programs that form a piece of software and those programs are for use by paying customers. In other words you are creating commercial software. I am also including software written for in house use (in the business sense) because such development, use and support usually involves internal billing and thus still qualifies it as commercial software.

Basically, if someone else other than the developer or developing department uses it, you can consider it to be commercial software in my mind.

So let’s say that you are assigned the task of developing a z/OS super widget application which, because it uses lots of system services will be written in assembler, or at least a lot of it will be. Let’s looks at how programming style will affect it’s life cycle.

Development

The faster you can develop and test the code to the point where it does what the requirements require without failing or causing other problems, the faster the product will reach the market and thus generate revenue for the business.

Everyone probably has a standard program entry and exit macro and possibly similar ones for subroutine entry and exit but what about other stuff. Parsing of input for example? Do you do it with hard coded assembler or use a macro or service to do parsing in a standard and consistent manner? If a service, do you call that service using a macro to make coding the call simpler and standard? Or, do you let your programmers set everything up by hand (guess which is the more reliable method)?

Do you use a standard form of label name for program labels and subroutine names? Are you still stuck in the ‘all labels must be 8 characters long’ mental state or do you use longer and more meaningful names, either CamelCase or with parts separated by underscores, E.G. WORK_FIELD_1.

Do you use naming standards to tie equated symbols to the field they relate to or is it a free for all. Is it easy to tell, without looking at the variable definition,  if a variable name is a label or an equated value and if a label, is it easy to tell which control block it belongs to, or if a constant, is it easy to tell that it is a constant?

And most importantly in my mind, do you create comment blocks for the program as a whole and for each subroutine that describes the program, it’s inputs, outputs and return codes and the same for all subroutines? Also, if the program is reliant upon a particular control block structure, do you document that WITHIN the code as best you can (using good old EBCDIC character graphics if need be) so that the architecture is right there in the code, not lost on some hard drive somewhere that got wiped because someone didn’t realize that what was on it was needed (the ‘not my job’ syndrome!).

Maintenance

If the code is well structured, follows consistent  naming standards, uses macros to standardize the coding of interface, has proper comments describing what each routine does, what it’s input and outputs are then understanding the code and diagnosing a problem becomes a lot easier and more importantly faster. You are also more likely to be able to correctly fix any problem without introducing new problems. All the above result in a faster turn around time for the resolution of any code related problems. They also mean it is much easier for someone other than the original developer to pick up the code and work on it with confidence.

This all results in improved customer confidence in the product and better tolerance for any problems that do occur because they know that they can be quickly resolved.

New Features

Code that is well structured is much easier to modify to add new features to. And just like the maintenance situation, there is less likelihood of such changes introducing new problems into either the new or the existing code. This all helps to get the product out to market that much quicker and earning revenue.

The Bottom Line

If you are a commercial programmer, that is, it’s your job, your work earns the business that you work for, the money that pays your wages. The quicker you can develop new code or fix existing code directly affects the companies business results and therefore your earnings.