Re: CL enhancements

Mark Lazarus wrote:
> 
> 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
Mark,

   I think the reason CL has not been enhanced for so long is that it is
not a separate product, it comes with the OS.  So they are getting
revenues (directly) to support improving it.  In addition, if it doesnt
have the word JAVA attached to it, I don't think IBM cares about it
anymore.

JMHO
-- 
Pete Massiello
OS Solutions International 
Phone: (203)-744-7854  Ext 11.
http://www.os-solutions.com
mailto:pmassiello@os-solutions.com
+---
| 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
+---