RE: Missing from RPG/LE

On Wednesday, September 30, 1998 9:17 AM, Hans Boldt 
[SMTP:boldt@ca.ibm.com] wrote:
> (The following is my personal opinion and may not
> represent any official IBM position.)  Yes, OO is
> a totally different paradigm.  As a result, it
> needs a totally different language.  As I'm sure
> you already know, just writing in an "OO Language"
> is not enough to write OO programs.  Adding OO
> features into a procedural language is probably
> the worst way to introduce someone to OO concepts.
> Just look at C++!
>
> No, the best way to learn OO is to use a language
> which encourages you to think in OO terms.  If we
> added OO features into RPG, it would simply end
> up as a poor OO language, which would make
> learning OO even more difficult.

Hans,
  May I use this quote (anonymously, if you wish) for the powers that be 
here in my shop?  You have no idea how many people think that using DOWEQ 
in an RPG/400 program makes it structured; that using SETATR (Visual RPG) 
in a program makes it a Windows GUI program; that using prototyped 
procedures in an RPG IV program makes it OO...  I wish there were a way to 
convince people that it's not the *opcode* that makes it structured/GUI/OO 
- it's the design paradigm.  The opcodes make it easier or harder to 
implement the design, but nothing more than that.

Sigh.

Buck Calabro
Commsoft, Albany, NY
mailto:mcalabro@commsoft.net

P.S.  Thanks so much for your continued contributions to the list.  I've 
learnt quite a bit! :-)
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---