Re: Why MI? (Was: MI programmers list? Interested?)

Doug wrote:
>>Why the interest in MI?  Why use MI when you can call any
>>system API more easily from RPG IV or C?
>
>Because there are not system APIs for everything, nor should there be.
>
>As an example, there have been a few times in recent memory that
>someone asked about doing the equivalent of XOR and other bit
>operations from RPG.  We both know this is trivial at the machine
>level, but there is certainly not a system API for it, nor is it in
>the C function library because it doesn't need one!
>
>I _knew_ there had to be a simple way to do, but without the MI
>Functional Reference manual I couldn't know how to code it.  Barbara
>piped in with prototypes to the MI functions.
>
>Just having the documentation on stuff like this, or _memcpy or
>whatever, opens a new realm of possibilities from RPG IV.

OK, RPG is weak for bit twiddling, but if you need to do
lots of bit twiddling, I'd argue that you're better off
using C than MI.  I also take issue with your assertion
that MI is a "simple" way to do it.  Just look at the
sample MI programs posted here recently - they're far
from straight-forward.

I think ther's a misconception out there that MI is
something close to the machine level.  It's not.  It's
simple a machine abstraction, just like any other
programming language.  In fact, if you're on a RISC box,
you're probably better off using a language like RPG IV
or C since the NMI can be optimized much better than any
MI program could be.

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.com


+---
| 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
+---