We recently had a presentation at our local user group on ILE:
At the end of the presentation, the RPG III programmers in the room were saying how glad they were that they didn’t have to mess with all the new concepts and techniques. I was actually beginning to see their point.
One thing that drives IBM i programmers to ILE is the adoption of a Web development framework. Scott's open-source initiatives and others are good examples. Then once you get into it, there's no turning back; just moving forward.
Linkedin polls may not be representative of the community at large, but 85% of RPG programmers indicated that they were using service programs.
Procedure return values is one of my favorite features, i.e. number = random(from:to);
From: w 4038 <window4038@xxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Use this to send questions <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 6:17 PM
Subject: What good is ILE?
What good is ILE??
Before ILE, if you needed to call program B from program A, a simple CALL statement did the job.
All you had to worry about was the library list and it was up to you to pass parameters correctly.
Then IBM introduced ILE.
Now you can worry about, Activation Groups,Binding Directories, Binder Language, subprocedures, service programs, Static Binding, Dynamic Binding, Bind by Reference and some I can't recall right now.
Sure, it's nice that the compile checks to ensure that passed parameters match, but what other benefits are there? The benefit isn't speed. Newer hardware resolves that.
All the complexity just increases the potential for coding errors.
So I ask great minds of the Midrange List, what good is ILE?
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2013 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact