MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » February 1998

CL enhancements



fixed

At 09:40 PM 2/15/98 PDT, you wrote:
>** Reply to note from Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@ttec.com> Mon, 02 Feb 1998
10:34:20
>
>
>> If I'm not mistaken, there have been numerous requests @ Common (and other 
>> avenues) for enhancements to CL.  Few have made it into production.  I 
>> imagine that's because the attitude is that it's a "free" program product 
>> (which it's not - OS/400 is not free!) 


>I would like to point out, though, that you are upset with a viewpoint
>that you are assuming IBM has. Until you get a letter from someone
>managing Rochester telling you they don't think what users want is
>important because CL is free, I don't think you should feel this is why
>IBM isn't responding.

 OK, maybe I was jumping to conclusions as to the *reason* CL hasn't seen
much in the way of enhancements, but the facts are there.  CL as a language
has hardly been touched.  We have many areas that we must kludge to work
properly.  A few examples: Mupltiple files opened, closing and opening a
file, working w/ various unsupported data types, loop control structures, etc.

>More likely, IBM may simply see the requested enhancements are having a
>lower priority than others and they do not have the resources to
>accomplish everything. The way to get IBM to reprioritize is to inform
>them why some change is important. 

 When a language is missing some basic elements (see above), no one should
have beat IBM over the head to get them to recognize its deficiencies.  The
IBM developers all agree that there are quite a few areas that need
improving.  We are not talking about niceties.  We are talking about basic
laguage constructs.

>Or, perhaps you can have a look at what
>IBM is working on and decide whether or not these issues should have
higher priority.

 When IBM feels it's important, they will do it.  We've been asking for
these items for almost 10 years!  Unless I have an immediate need for a
particular feature that's impossible to do otherwise, I don't have to (and
can't) decide what IBM's priority should be.

>As an aside, Mark, I usually find it best to assign to others the same
>motiviations I would have in their situation. If I can't figure out what
>would make me behave that way, I try to figure out what motiviations it
>would take to influence me into those actions. This isn't always
>successful, but it does help.

 The only motivation I can come up with is that it's not directly a big
money maker.  Can you come up w/ another after so long?

 -mark
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---






Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact