Terry,

>maintainability
>A function of the user interface - a program that needs to be maintained is something my clients don't want to hear about. Drop it - debug it - bye - bye!

No it isn't. When your customer comes back to you wanting to add a feature or change the way something works, that's when maintainability pays for itself.

Studies have shown that you'll spend more time maintaining (correcting bugs, adding features, new versions) than you will in creating it in the first place.

>reusability
>Probably like you I have so many routines (builders, populaters, etc) that I just paste and edit them for the next project. Some PRGs I just drop in the dev folder and never look at em.

To the extent that I don't look at the routines in my framework, yeah. I don't copy, paste and edit. I consider that a bad design decision since it leaves me with two routines, and if a problem occurs, it may mean that I have to modify two programs rather than one.

>"decomposed"
>Are you making fun of me?:-)

LOL! No, myself!< bg >

>"partitioned"
>Hmmmm..... sounds divisive

It should.:-)

>tend to pay a price in overhead (such as calling another routine, parameters, returns values) when compared to those that write in-line code.
>My PRGs look like they don't do anything is what I've been told. My procedures are little more than a list of function calls to my procedural framework(s).

Sound highly cohesive and loosely coupled.

>Since I am moving to ginko status, I have to use real long function (procedure) names soze I can member what they do.

That's a good idea.

>Speed and style - as long as it don't look or behave like a bench program - I usually feel pretty good (but never satisfied). No seams. No flicker! Smooth and cool!

I'm with you.