Re: CL enhancements

[qappdsn@xxxxxxx]

Chris Rehm wrote:

> ** Reply to note from Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@ttec.com> Wed, 18 Feb 1998 
>23:13:39
>
> <snip>
>
> Of course we need CL. It would even be very nice if it got some new stuff.
> But I don't have your point of view at all.
>

<<snip>>

I don't want to start anything with this, but I'm starting to get the "lazy
programmer" feeling here, where a CL wrapper around an RPG program might 
interfere
with someone's lunch plans.

CL does what CL does, period.  RPG does what RPG does, period.  A solution may
require both.  Just because one spends x hours solving the problem is no cause 
to
whine about the fact that it takes 10x hours to implement the solution.

CL is an adequate language for it's intended purpose and RPG (the primary 
language)
is growing.  IMHO CL in an ILE environment with the newer constructs of RPG can 
be
entirely dropped.  And maybe THAT is the intended purpose?

root
+---
| 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
+---