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

I think a lot more people COULD have a C compiler if they bothered to
make a case for one. Put it in the
education/e-commerce/whatever-you-can-think-of budget. If you're going
to take the time to educate yourself you may as well do it wisely. MI is
part of the OPM model - it has no future. There are no programmer guides
or MI-in-a-week manuals. A lot of the "useful" things that you used to
be able to do have either been walled off at level 40 or been granted
API access. I think a lot of the interest from those wanting to know
more about MI comes from the perceived thrill of dabbling in the occult
when the reality is a lot more arcane and mundane.

TrailBlazer Systems, Inc.
http://www.softwarejungle.com
AS/400 E-Commerce Solutions

Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Williams [SMTP:Williamsc@technocrats.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 7:08 AM
> To:   'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com'
> Subject:      RE: Why MI? (Was: MI programmers list? Interested?)
> 
> Would I be right in saying that for 99.9% of the people on this list,
> a
> C compiler is just not an option?
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: boldt@ca.ibm.com [mailto:boldt@ca.ibm.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 1:49 PM
> >To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> >Subject: Re: Why MI? (Was: MI programmers list? Interested?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Jim wrote:
> >>I think the problem is, most of us don't have a C compiler on the
> >>box.  I know I don't, nor do any of the other 2 AS/400's we're
> >>using.  It comes down to you use what you have, whether it's
> >>best or not.  If I had a C compiler I would use it.  I don't have
> it,
> >>so I'm not going to.
> >
> >I've always believed in using the appropriate tool for
> >the task at hand.  To me, for most of the reasons people
> >use MI, C is the more appropriate tool.
> >
> >To me, MI is a relic of the S/38 CISC architecture.
> >Certainly, at least a few people thought it was a good
> >idea at the time (late 1970's), but it has been superceded
> >by more current technology.  In the S/38 and CISC AS/400's,
> >it was the closest thing we had to an assembler language.
> >In the current RISC machines, the "assembly language" is C.
> >
> >I can certainly understand using MI when C is not available.
> >But I just don't want to encourage it.
> >
> >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
> >+---
> >
> +---
> | 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
> +---
+---
| 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
+---