RE: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"

Bob wrote:

> If tech savvy managers are not moving to RPG IV because they don't have
> programmers who will be able to maintain it (as suggested in several
other
> posts) how will adding yet another flavor (the CF-spec) enhance the
> manager's willingness to use RPG IV? I believe it will not. It will have
the
> opposite effect, hence my dislike of introducing the CF-spec today.
Perhaps
> after a few years of RPG IV code, if people want to go the 'RPG V' route,
> then sure, go ahead, but in today's world, CF-spec will kill RPG IV.

> But, hey I only speak from talking to thousands and thousands of RPG
> programmers, not a few dozen respondents from this mailing list (as IBM
> apparently does).


So Bob, tell us how you really feel?  I too have heard the excuses for not
going to RPG-IV, and frankly, they're mostly just that.  The sad truth is
that most programmers code RPG exactly the same way they did 10 years ago.
Every new feature added to the language poses potential maintenance and
support problems for shops that don't want to invest in keeping up, or are
saddled with programmers who don't want to change with the times.  They
will not and should not control the future of the language.

CF will kill RPG IV?  Hardly.  For whatever reason, the free vs. formatted
debate inevitably becomes an argument of politics and religion, full of
hyperbole.  It's one thing to argue that resources would be better spent
elsewhere.  It's quite another to proclaim that no one should be allowed to
have free format, even if it's use is optional, even if it's cost is
minimal.








+---
| 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