Skip to Content

Structual programming the bane of my existance.  I thought the debate was put to rest here years ago.  Now it is raising it’s head again.  Why? WHy? WHY?  That is the question of the day.

I was very frustrated.  I thought the decision had been made a long time ago.  So I asked for Mentor help.  Quickly found out I should have posted this publically.  So this is my summary artical.

Structual – Yes I really listen to the other side.

So for the Structural side of the debate. 

  • It’s faster to write.  Our team knows it.  There is no learning curve.  We have many, many projects with tight deadlines.  So when are “we” going to be able to learn a new technology. 
  • It is a completely different way of thinking and will take time we don’t have.
  • The performance of structural programming is better for large reports. 
  • We have function modules for reusabilty.
  • Inherentence makes our head hurt.
  • Polymorphism – Wow that sounds like a neat word we’ll never use.
  • We do use ALV OO – it’s quick and easy to use

My TURN Non-structual side ABAP OO:

 Abap objects

I have a series of blogs that I will be sharing with you.  Learning new technology and some slide from my network session.

One of the things I would like to do is provide a demo, and voice over for some of these slides.  They can get confusing just reading them.  I’ll try and get it out soon.  There is just so many hours in a day.

I do know there is a limit on Objects:
RFCs, ABAP Dynpros, and Certain Frameworks

A big Thank you to the Mentor Team that helped me with the reasons.  John Moy who really helped.  At times I steal phrases from him. Education Delivery Organization.  She took the time out for my request.

Another thank you to Jim Spath who strongly suggested a blog Good thing I already had one started.  Thank you to Cynthia Kramer a Senior Education Consultant in the North America SAP.  She is another one I stole phrases from.

To report this post you need to login first.

2 Comments

You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.

  1. Kumud Singh
    Hello Michelle,
    This looks like a old won war but interesting to know that you would be publishing series of blogs/slides for the same.
    Somehow, I have been following your blogs/comments and support the idea that estimation can be given little flexibly(wherever possible) to get the object done in the best way.
    Having said that, personally I would never go back to square one.
    However,I would like you to comment on the fact that even if we know whats the best, how much of those principles are we able to apply in our coding because of numerous reasons.
    e.g. First time requirement comes and handed to the developer. Perfect.Because of gaps/loop holes in design phase or understanding, scenarios keep changing/added and the same object gets elongated for a much longer duration than ever anticipated.
    Do you think the quality of code would be maintained?Also, what fun would it be for developer to change ‘X’ to ‘Y’ and then to ‘Z’ and then back to ‘X’.
    Any comments?

    Thanks,
    Kumud

    (0) 
    1. Michelle Crapo Post author

      Not a won war.  We agreed to disagree.  Which means I get to use ABAP OO.  Yes!  This is indeed an old war.  I waged it a long time ago.  New manager and I have to convince her of the benefits after all it does take longer until we get over the learning curve.

      (0) 

Leave a Reply