Re: question on survey question

Hello Bob,

You wrote:
>I want the ability to use, under V5R1 and new enhancements to the RPG IV
>language that IBM provides in releases after V5R1, and to compile source
>code with those enhances to create objects that will run on V5R1.
>The only exception would be things that are operating system release
>dependant, like a new object type in the data base that RPG might also
>support, or for example, the Java integration the did in V5R1. But when
>a new built-in function or operation code is introduced, there is no
>reason I should be dis-allowed to use that built-in function or
>operation code on my V5R1 machine and compile code that runs on V5R1
>from V5R1.

Aside from the fact that I think the request is unreasonable I don't think
you have considered the impact.  Imagine:

New feature %whizbang is provided at VRM540.  You desperately want to use
this feature and want it available for your customers on 530, 520, and 510
-- NOTE:- by the time 540 arrives 510 and probably 520 will be out of
official.

Your desire will require IBM to provide PTFs for those prior releases to
make the %whizbang function available because many (most) of the BIFs are
implemented as functions.  So you require PTFs to the RPG run-time for
510, 520, and 530.  You may also require PTFs to the C runtime to support
the new feature because much of RPG IV is implemented as calls to
functions in QC2UTILx service programs.

An ILE program is not as simple in structure as the old MI programs so
it's not as straightforward as simply allowing the 540 program to be saved
for and restored on an earlier release.  You cannot presume that BIFs are
simply converted to inline code.  The bulk of what you want will require
PTFs to implement.

If you want source compatibility then you will require PTFs to the RPG IV
compiler at 510, 520, and 530.  Doing that will also require PTFs for the
CODE/400 verifier at the corresponding CODE/400 releases.

You are also requiring your customers to install PTFs for no reason other
than to run your neat code.  Also, if IBM do provide such PTFs when will
customers EVER upgrade.  It's hard enough as it is to keep them current.

Since 510 and 520 would both probably be out of official support you wnat
IBM to continue PTFs for them just because a new feature is added to a
later release?  That is more likely to slow the development of new
features than give any real previous release benefits.

The cost of all this to IBM would be horrendous.  Testing the fixes,
building PTFs, distribution, etc.  And for what gain?  To make the lives
of a few software developers a bit easier?  You'll have to do better than
that.

The real problem is developers who think they should be able to support
multiple releases with a single code base AND use all the new fangled
language features.

Further discussion, rebuttal, and argument should probably continue in
MIDRANGE-L since the fundamental issue of previous release support is not
specifically RPG related.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists
   http://www.flybynight.com.au/

   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175   mailto: shc@flybynight.com.au   \ /
                                                             X
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------