RE: RPGIII compiler vs Visual Basic

> From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 1 - TSM did not reach the end of it's cycle.  It's being enhanced.
It's
> very popular.  It's just that IBM isn't putting any of the new
versions on
> i5/os.  Why not?

Did you ask IBM?  I don't know, Rob.  Why doesn't Microsoft enhance IE
for the Apple the same way they do for Windows?  I assume it's a
business decision.  Maybe there just isn't enough demand for TSM on the
iSeries.  Personally, you're the only person I know who uses it, but
certainly that's no gauge.  I wonder how many other people use TSM on
OS/400?


> 2 - If TSM is just a product, couldn't the RPG compiler be thought of
as
> the same way?  I mean, they both show up on DSPSFWRSC.

They are as far apart as possible and still be OS/400 software, since
they're the opposite ends of the make vs. buy spectrum.  


> Has IBM dropped
> languages in the past for the AS/400, like BASIC, RM-COBOL, FORTRAN,
etc?
> There's already lots of grumbling that it would be nice to drop the
> RPG/400 compiler to push people to the RPG ILE compiler.  But as you
could
> point out, IBM still has the RPG II compiler going on it.

Not that I know of, Rob, and this is pure speculation with no
foundation, whereas we have seen this from Microsoft over and over and
over again.

Anyway, as you say, it's getting tiring.  You're ticked off about TSM
and OV/400 and CPYIMPF.  I can understand that.  I'm ticked off about
the MOVE instruction and WebSphere.  Yet, I still would pick OS/400 over
Windows from an investment protection standpoint in a heartbeat.  I
can't see any rational person doing otherwise.

Joe