{"id":5,"date":"2006-11-09T15:51:04","date_gmt":"2006-11-09T15:51:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pixelbase.co.uk\/rss\/?p=5"},"modified":"2006-11-15T11:31:16","modified_gmt":"2006-11-15T11:31:16","slug":"sap-professional-journal-free-abap-guides","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.pixelbase.co.uk\/?p=5","title":{"rendered":"SAP Professional Journal – free ABAP Guides"},"content":{"rendered":"

SDN<\/a> has posted all 3 parts of the “Insider’s guide to writing robust, understandable, maintainable, state-of-the-art ABAP programs”<\/a>. Here are my comments on reading part 1 of 3.<\/p>\n

Quite early on Blumenthal and Keller make it clear that the OO model is the favoured one. This doesn’t come as a surprise as both of them have been instrumental in developing the ABAP language to where it is today. Whilst it is undisputed where the benefits of object-oriented programming models lie, my thoughts after reading about the first 2-3 pages are that this mostly is not a guide for people “out there” in the field. For example, in this day and age where shareholder value seems to be paramount it is hard to believe that a client would welcome it if an ABAPer would re-write any of his\/her “outdated” ABAPs without business case. Having said that, there is always the possibility of going over “outdated” parts of code whilst doing other fixes or enhancements.<\/p>\n

As far as writing new ABAPs in OO is concerned, I am still not sure that ABAP OO has been adopted widely enough to switch over entirely. I agree that a cutover has to be made at some point, but in my own experience I can not see the whole developer community ready for it just yet.
\nThere are some helpful recommendations, the most important ones in my view are:<\/p>\n