RE: Compatibility across releases as curse WAS: CF-Spec - another call for opinions

Bob,

We agree more than you might think!

>People don't move to new technologies even 
>if they are forced to. 

Do they resist?  Sure do!  Can they be forced?  Sure can!   I had to change
some perfectly good working S/3 RPG II programs from MFCU to SEQ when we
went to the S/38.  Oddly enough, I had to get rid of the MFCU, too.  Did we
want to?  Nope.  We were forced to because the S/38 didn't support cards.

>People move because they are sold. Unless 
>and until a technology becomes a commodity, 
>you can't sell people on technology--typically. 

Oh, agreed!  That's why it's so hard to convince managers to buy RPG IV
books, and to send people to training: "I learnt by doing - so can the new
guy!"  We shouldn't TRY to sell the technology; we should try to sell the
benefits: "If we use RPG IV and build a library of service programs, we can
hire New Guy for $$$$ less than an experienced programmer and he can be
productive quickly!"

>If my program is obsolete, because OS/400 
>V5Rx makes it obsolete, then I stay on the release
>prior to that one because I want my investment in 
>this business tool last until "OSHA comes in and 
>forces me to change". (Metaphor)

I'm not arguing that the application (not just the individual programs) is
obsolete because of V5Rx - I'm arguing that the application is obsolete
because it's seen too many calendar pages turned.  These old apps are on
life support merely because V5Rx *is* compatible with V1R0.

There's little question that many shops will stay on V4 if V5 makes their
software obsolete, but there's also little question that they won't bother
to take advantage of the benefits of V5 either.  They'll keep running their
V0-compatible apps and wonder if that fancy OPNQRYF can do anything for
them.  After many years have passed, they've lost so many benefits that the
worst programmer in the world writing for V6 can replace their entire
application suite cheaper than they can maintain the old V0 stuff.

>The money is NOT in making RPG IV totally free 
>format. The MONEY is in getting customers to 
>upgrade and/or purchase new systems. If those 
>systems are 100 percent compatible with their 
>existing systems, and they save money or fill 
>a need, they will upgrade. 

I completely agree with this.  The point I'm making is that this is a
double-edged sword; continuing to run 1980 software on newer CPUs won't make
that 1980 software any better at solving 1999's business problems.
Compatibility can be an excuse not to say goodbye to 1980!  :-)

>For the RPG programmer, I believe the MONEY 
>is not in getting a free format feature in RPG IV. 
>It is in providing them with a future that builds on 
>what they already know--not was a few (albeit a 
>few dozen) people want. 

I have no idea where the money is for RPG programmers.  I worked for 17
years in a shop that followed the gospel of compatibility, and we didn't
spend a nickel if we didn't have to.  I was absolutely shocked to find out
exactly how underpaid I was.  I was also shocked to find out how badly
under-educated I was - I would agree that this list sees many of the elite
(the few dozen?) of the midrange world, but oddly enough, I'd bet they make
more money than I do, even now.  Is it because they're more progressive than
I was?  I truly wonder.

>Most AS/400 programmers want the ability to 
>know their code is going to work and that it 
>will work on the next release as well. 

I'm sure you agree with me that moving to RPG IV would help most AS/400
programmers write more robust, easier to maintain code?  Do the CF-specs
make it harder to do that, or easier?

>The CF-spec with or without parens, colons, 
>slashes, asterisks provides none of that stuff.

I think it's generally accepted by the programming profession that
fixed-format languages are harder to read than free-format.  Whether
old-time AS/400 programmers will accept that idea is another story, or is
it?  Do you feel we can't handle free-format coding?

>CompSci is not important here. I'd rather have things
>engineered so they work for the lifetime of the 
>component, than to be designed "correctly" as 
>CompSci sees it. 

Sigh.  I "recently" discovered CompSci and fell in love.  I would ask how
you would get a component "engineered so it works" when the person working
on it doesn't understand the fundamentals of engineering.  You can't
possibly mean "old code is better code" because you're in the business of
teaching new things to folks.  What am I missing?

>Because those "correctly designed" components 
>are going to become obsolete with the next wave 
>of CompSci grads.

Hm.  I'm not a CompSci anything, but I don't recall modular programming
being discarded as obsolete.  I rather thought that OO built upon (refined?)
modular design methodology rather than supplanted it.  Don't listen to the
MS sales pitches for VB6!!!  :-)

>If a bridge were built by CompSci grads we'd have 
>bridges that last for, what? 12 months...

I wouldn't knowingly drive over a bridge that wasn't designed by a
structural engineer.  Today's structural engineers know more about
engineering than their predecessors.  If they've made any ideas obsolete,
I'm confident that they were hidden bugs or even disasters that lead to
things like Tacoma Narrows, or our own Thruway bridge over the Scoharie.

You make some very good points, and I really don't think we're far apart
when it comes to the big picture: we both want the AS/400 to be THE computer
of mid-sized business and we both want to keep programming in RPG IV.  Most
assuredly, we both want RPG IV to be the best that we can make it!  If that
makes us passionate, then that's a good thing.  If I ever get the chance to
meet face to face, I'll buy you a round of whatever your pleasure is!

Buck Calabro
+---
| 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
+---