Re[2]: FW: Random

     Hm, (flame throwers in check)
     
     Booth, I'm really not sure just what you're complaining about. RPG 
     isn't stopping you from delivering a solution for your users. 
     Enhancing RPG is in no way going to hold back the end user tools you 
     seem to be wanting. The FOR opcode may not be the penultimate 
     enhancement, but it's certainly not going to cause you problems or 
     make your users turn away from the AS400. 
     
     You have interesting requirements for application building users, but 
     I believe solutions may already be found for your app-writing users. 
     Off the top of my head, I'd suggest looking at ASC Sequel product. I 
     know you said they can't/won't use SQL, but my recollection of this 
     product put it WAY ahead of Query/400 in both capability and 
     user-friendliness. I only looked at it once (several years ago), but I 
     was quite impressed with it. 
     
     As far as "obscure and pendantic", that pretty well sums up every 
     programming language ever devised. Good luck....
     
     eric.delong@pmsi-services.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: FW: Random 
Author:  <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> at INET_WACO
Date:    2/16/00 2:17 PM


"FOR" is nice I guess.  But what I need to make my users like the AS/400 and 
RPG is something akin to the role originally played by RPG.  I need a way to 
get knowledgable users to the data and allow them to use it.  The people I 
am talking about can deal with Query/400 but not SQL.  They need to be able 
to build decent applications, they need to be able to establish commands, 
they need to be able to layout reports that are attractive.  You know, like 
they can do with Excel.  Otherwise, "FOR" becomes a moot feature on an 
unappealing platform.
     
Sorry, but making RPG more obscure and pendantic will not bring in the users 
that I meet every day.  
     
-----Original Message-----
From: Fisher, Don [mailto:DRF@HeiligMeyers.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 1:32 PM
To: boothm@goddard.edu
Subject: RE: FW: Random
     
     
As someone observed earlier, that is not particularly intuitive.  The "For" 
construct is, in my opinion, more logical in construction, mostly because it 
is not limited to columnar formatting as is the "DO".
     
That is not to say the contruction is perfect.  The COBOL "Perform" 
operation is probably more intuitive, but also more wordy.  That's not a 
problem for me, but apparently, it is to some.
     
The "For" construct offers a good compromise between the RPG DO and the 
COBOL "Perform" and has the advantage of high recognition among IS 
professionals.
     
Just my opinion, of course.
     
Donald R. Fisher, III
Project Manager
Heilig-Meyers Furniture Company
(804) 784-7500 ext. 2124
Don.Fisher@HeiligMeyers.com
     
<Clip>
     
1 do 10 x
some code here
2  enddo
     
this will start with x = 1 and increment by 2. 
<clip>
+---
| 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
+---