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

Hans,

As you know, most of us General Purpose Business Applications programmers
don't tend to write too many compilers in our lifetimes. In fact, we don't
care about such things except as professional curiosity. It is the
compiler-writers that should not be designing general purpose business
applications because, they tend not to write general purpose business
applications themselves. In stead, they write compilers.

But you're point about me thinking RPG is better than C... except for AS/400
I don't know of a platform where C is still used for application
development. Usually C++ or some other language is used. Today, it seems
like a lot of people are using Java, while I believe the jury is still out
on Java, it may actually survive.

So is C better than RPG? Because you _can_ write a compiler in C does that
make C a good general purpose business application language? I think not, I
have NEVER seen a C program that someone else wrote (over 200 lines) I could
modify. In stead I go in a rewrite entire section so that I understand
what's going on. While RPG programmers have similar problems, you can at
least figure out what's going on in most RPGIII and RPG IV programs.

My point was that the System C/400 Record I/O functions are available in ILE
C/400 and therefore, since they offer the complete set of I/O functions
(beyond that offered in RPG) C on the AS/400 has "better" I/O capabilities
that RPG IV. (Cheap shot on) This is a situation that YOU (i.e., IBM
Toronto) have created by not adding this additional I/O capability to RPG IV
instead of working on the CF spec.... (Cheap shot off).

You also mention that PL/I doesn't count anymore. That was a full
free-format business programming language. The problem is PL/I is that it
had good syntax, but did TOO much. A business application programmer just
couldn't get their arms around it. There were also some political issues but
that's another story.

This thing about RPG programmers being super smart or not smart or super
dumb is just silly. Sure back in the 1980's programmers of S/34 S/38 and
later the S/36 were in Data Processing because it was cool. Most did not
have a Masters degree. If you were really into comp-sci you were off doing
something else, not usually writing RPG code for the GSD boxes.

Today if you're a really cool, smart, multi-degreed individual you may be
working at NASA, you may be writing code for Microsoft or SUN, or you might
be writing C and RPG code for general purpose business applications on the
AS/400.

So what is the CF-spec going to do for me? Is it going to make my Subfile
program look any better to the end-user? Is it going to offer a Graphical
User Interface (GUI) to my RPG IV applications? Is it going to make me a
better programmer? Is it going to cause the RPGII or RPGIII programmers to
move to RPG IV?

To me, there are so many issue that need to be addressed on the AS/400 that
free-format RPG IV does not solve, that spend a dime on CF-specs is a bad
management decision. If CF-specs are free, then you need to figure out the
"cost of free". Because nothing is really free.

Someday, from my ivory tower (which today is the airport in Austin Texas) I
hope IBM understand the AS/400's place in the market. You don't write an
Invoice program for the AS/400 because you can use free-form CF-specs. You
write an Invoice program for the AS/400 because it is reliable, has a great
database, and is EASY to use. The old acronym is still true today, KISS.  We
just don't care about Compsci theories. We want the f'n Order Entry program
to work.



Bob Cozzi

http://www.RPGIV.com




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com [mailto:owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com]On
> Behalf Of boldt@ca.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 8:01 AM
> To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
>
>
>
>
> Bob wrote:
> >Actually, database I/O in RPG is easier, not better. I believe C actually
> >has more I/O options than RPG does. But C is free format, so doesn't that
> >make it better? Not to me.
>
> So you're saying RPG is better than C?  Would you write a compiler
> using RPG?  I wouldn't!  And it's not its fixed format syntax that
> makes RPG unsuitable for compiler writing.  On the other hand,
> most consider C unsuitable for business applications.  When you
> say that one language is "better" than another, what you mean is
> that one language is better for a particular problem domain.
>
> Eric commented that he tries to learn one new programming language
> a year.  I think that's a great strategy.  You know the old saying:
> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks
> like a nail."  Different languages are best suited to different
> problem domains.  By learning different languages, you learn about
> different approaches to problem solving.  I've always argued that
> the best way to improve your RPG coding is to learn Java (or
> rather OO in general).  It's sort of like how learning another
> human language gives you a better understanding of another
> culture.
>
> To extend the metaphor further, like human languages and culture,
> programming languages and culture also change, but much more
> rapidly.  When RPG IV was born in the early 1990's, the internet
> hadn't exploded out yet.  Java and CGI could barely be foreseen.
> Things change.  And the past five years have seen more change
> than the previous 15.  Interestingly, of the 20 or so odd
> languages I'd played with during my undergrad years in the late
> 1970's, only a few remain in common use today:  COBOL, and C.
> (I'm not sure if Basic and PL/I really count anymore!)
>
> Like most things, RPG too will die someday.  I predict that the
> last RPG program will be written sometime during the next
> century.  A decade or so later, the last RPG program will be
> taken out of production and the event will not be marked by any
> ceremony.
>
> To get back to a positive tone, the CF-Spec is very forward
> looking.  The original RPG IV was intended to easily bring
> old RPG III code into the realm of ILE.  But since many of the
> traditional fixed-format opcodes will not be supported by the
> CF-Spec, the CF-Spec is best suited for new code.  This is a
> very optimistic statement.  As you know, since most programmers
> have to support older releases, most won't get to use the CF-Spec
> for another 5 years or so.  What we are saying is that we fully
> expect programmers to continue writing new RPG programs 5 years
> from now, in spite of all the pressures to move to other, more
> modern, programming languages.
>
> BTW, I don't want to sound like a Perl salesman, but check out
> this story about Perl: <http://www.perl.org/advocacy/chiem.html>
> To summarize, one student overwhelmingly trounced all competition
> in the 1997 UCLA undergraduate programming contest by using Perl.
> As a result, the contest organizers banned the use of Perl in
> subsequent years.  Perhaps Perl has a valid claim to the title
> "Best Programming Language"?  ;-)
>
> Cheers!  Hans
>
> Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.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
>
>

+---
| 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