RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"

Geeze!

How about we ask Rochester to add database I/O support to CL? Would that
make all the CF-spec "nuts" happy? I mean come on! Even John Carr (who
originally suggested "CF") doesn't think it is a necessary feature.

IBM Toronto has indicated that "most" people want the "CF-spec". However, I
wonder if it is "most" people, or just the majority of the people that
answered their question. After all, if you DON'T want it or DON'T care about
it, why bother telling Toronto? I mean, "most" people that answer the
question are going to want the CF spec.

Don't get me wrong, I'm prefer natural expression syntax than the
limitations that traditional RPGII style code provides. But I just don't see
how supporting:

RPGIII
RPG IV
 and
RPG IV with CF-spec

is going to encourage IT Managers to supporting moving to RPG IV.

So I ask you, if you do NOT care if the CF-spec every sees the light of day,
or DON'T want the CF-spec, to voice your opinion now.
I feel we need an architecture for RPG. We need many poorly designed
features corrected, we need consistent designs and several new features
before we effectively turn RPG IV into CL II.

Let me know what you think.


Bob Cozzi

http://www.RPGIV.com

+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---END