Re: what was the single mgmt decision made in mid-1990s. period

That is true the program will not run differently at all, but I do think
they need to be rewritten. That is just my opinion though.

I just think the software needs to be updated. I will admit it's a HUGE
expense, but I think it's worth it. At some point things just need to be
updated.

Also, the problem I see is, they are never changed. Even worse they are
copied to a new program because the logic is already there.

I'm sure there are plenty of software packages that aren't like this. I've
personally only worked with about 4 different packages, and they are all old
RPGIII programs that were converted. I just find it messy and well, I prefer
free-form anyway ;-)

James R. Perkins


On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 15:53, Albert York <albertyork@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I can't see the advantage of rewriting MOVE and indicator usage in existing
programs. New programs should use the new techniques and old programs should
be changed as needed when they are maintained. But where's the justification
for rewriting the existing programs. At a practical level a MOVE does the
same thing as an assignment ans SETON does the same thing as a BIF. You're
not making the program run any differently, you're only making the source
look different.

Albert

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Perkins" <jrperkinsjr@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: what was the single mgmt decision made in mid-1990s. period
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:36:45 -0800


Very true Jon.

I have 2 main ISV's I deal with on a regular basis. Both are now using

RPGLE

programs, but most of it is just converted from RPG III source members. I
hesitate to consider it RPG IV when I still see MOVE being used and
indicators over %FOUND() or other BIF's.

The ISV's don't really want to take the time to do it right. They just

want

the fast solution of running their old code through a fancy CVTRPGSRC.
That's not a fix, it's just a bandage.

Also, I think IBM has given us options for a GUI. They had Visual Age,

which

no one really adopted. They have HATS (I'm not personally a fan), they

have

WebFacing. There are WebSphere solutions, JSF, JSP, servlets, etc. Now

they

even have EGL. There are options, it just takes some extra/different
programming.

James R. Perkins
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.