RE: Qualified sub-procedures

>Which brings me back to my original point. If you want to do OO
programming, use an OO language, from which there are already many good ones
to choose.

My next question to you would be why are there multiple languages that can
do OO programming?  Because somebody found a better way to do it.  RPG could
be that language that takes the next step!

<!--humor on -->
Hans, I can hear you saying this before V5R1 came out.
"Which brings me back to my original point.  If you want to do free-format
programming, use a free-format language, from which there are already many
good ones to choose."
Sorry, I couldn't resist:-)
<!-- humor off -->

Why give RPG more functionality at all?  Why not just have your whole shop
move to C# or Java since they have the stuff that we are looking for?  See
where I am coming from?

If I had the choice I probably would develop 90% of my new programs in Java
because of the flexibility, but the reality of it is that in our corporation
we have about 50 RPG programmers and very few Java programmers.  Of those 50
there are very few that even want to learn a OO language, but those same
ones will want to know what the latest RPG enhancements are and start using
them.  This brings me back to my point of wanting RPG to go more in that
direction because that is what will allow me to use OO concepts more because
the RPG will adopt them more readily.


Aaron Bartell

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Boldt [mailto:boldt@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:28 AM
To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Qualified sub-procedures


M. Lazarus wrote:
>  We have heard on this list several times that RPG is not a good language
> to become an OO language.  You also mentioned a few reasons, but those
> leaned more toward preference than technical obstacles.
>
>  What technical obstacles do you see?  And what *serious* programming
> obstacles do you see?  (For example, I do not consider strong typing to be
> a serious obstacle, because that could be relaxed in some instances [CONST
> parms being an  example of that], or, as you mentioned, the design s/b
> revisited.)

Good questions!

Technically, I don't think there are any *major* obstacles. I think
the main problems would be in defining an OO language to the
satisfaction of its users, within a budget that was acceptable to
IBM management.

This all really depends on what kind of object model you want. Right
now, the language has references to Java objects. Perhaps the
language could be enhanced with syntax that makes the use of Java
objects easier? Like Java, we could have a language with two types
of things: Objects, and the native RPG data types. This would allow
us full upward compatibility with existing RPG code.

Now then, using objects defined in Java with a more OO-style syntax
probably would be fairly straight-forward. This would make a lot of
sense since we then wouldn't have to re-invent the whole class
hierarchy of Java, which contains a heck of a lot of useful
functionality.

Defining classes in RPG would probably be more difficult to design
and implement. And it would probably end up looking and working
pretty much like Java.

So, what exactly is gained by this type of design? Would this be any
easier than, say, just learning Java? Probably not since the biggest
aspect of learning Java is learning how to use the Java class
library. And learning OO methodology would still be required, which
of course is a pre-requisite to using any OO language.

Which brings me back to my original point. If you want to do OO
programming, use an OO language, from which there are already many
good ones to choose.

Alternatively, learn OO using a language suited to learning (such as
Python), and then apply your new skills in RPG. I've previously
argued that learning OO can improve your skills, even in procedural
programming.

Cheers!  Hans



_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.