RE: Standards issue - Comments please.

Hmm...I don't care for O specs or print files, but they are the available
choices.  Seems to me neither one has a significant edge.  I don't see that
having the output external to the program is inherently superior.  The reuse
potential is low for reports.  Where you want to run the same report over
different data, it can make more sense to run the report over a work file.

For simple columnar output, O specs are easy if you use relative
positioning.  Code Designer (it's free) makes print files much easier to
work with and allows you to do formatting things that would be tedious with
O specs as easily as doing screens.

I think it's a matter of what is best for the task at hand.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rajan tangri [mailto:rajantangri@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Standards issue - Comments please.
>
>
>
> From a  developers prospective, I prefer PRTF.
>
> They are simple to code, easy to modify and reusable.
>
>
> hth,
> Rajan Tangri
>
>
> >From: "DeLong, Eric" <EDeLong@Sallybeauty.com>
> >Reply-To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> >To: "'rpg400-l@midrange.com'" <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
> >Subject: RE: Standards issue - Comments please.
> >Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:56:40 -0600
> >
> >Dave,
> >
> >I know this a a dangerous topic <g> but I needed to get more
> fuel.....
> >Bruce
> >Vining pointed out the national language support issue,
> which is just now
> >becoming a research project for one of our devo teams.
> >
> >As several others have stated, I'd put myself in the group
> that prefers
> >o-specs "just because". But once I began looking at it as a
> "problem", I
> >found that I cannot justify "just because" as a valid answer
> to why we
> >should use o-specs. So far, the only advantage is outputting array
> >elements,
> >which seems pretty mild as arguments go..... :)
> >
> >RPG cycle issues are null and void.  Cycle is used ONLY for batch
> >maintenance programs, not reporting.
> >
> >RLU?  Is this really an argument in favor of Prtf?  I freely
> admit that
> >it's
> >been a few years since I looked at RLU, but I feel that the
> main reason
> >most
> >programmers avoided (past tense) PRTF in the first place was
> crappy old
> >RLU.
> >Is it better now?  I know that Code Designer (and its
> successor when it's
> >developed) are much easier to use, but I see less than ten
> percent of the
> >developers here with any interest in the new tools.
> >
> >Thanks to all.
> >
> >Eric DeLong
> >Sally Beauty Company
> >MIS-Project Manager (BSG)
> >940-898-7863 or ext. 1863
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Leland, David [mailto:dleland@Harter.com]
> >Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:55 PM
> >To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com'
> >Subject: RE: Standards issue - Comments please.
> >
> >
> >This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does
> not understand
> >this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
> >--
> >[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> >One thing that you don't mention in the "pros and cons" is
> the speed issue.
> >Back on v3r7 and prior, PRTF's added a significant amount to
> the runtime of
> >the RPG program.  Don't know if that is still the case or
> not, but it's
> >something you should consider.
> >
> >Dave
> >p.s.  You do realize you're starting up a discussion similar to the
> >"cycle/no-cyle", don't you.  The archives should have quite
> a bit on this
> >subject already.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: DeLong, Eric [mailto:EDeLong@Sallybeauty.com]
> >Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:40 PM
> >To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com'
> >Subject: Standards issue - Comments please.
> >
> >
> >We will be having a review of shop standards soon, and I've
> been asked to
> >assemble a "pros and cons" list for the O-spec -vs- Prtf topic.  Our
> >current
> >standard recommends O-spec, but exceptions come up occasionally.
> >
> >The arguments boil down to the following:
> >(The group that favors O-spec)
> >"O-specs are simpler to code and easier to maintain"
> >"Report programs are self contained"
> >"Fewer members to check out"
> >
> >(Now the PRTF group)
> >"PRTF is simpler to code and easier to maintain"
> >"Separation of presentation attributes from report logic makes report
> >layout
> >changes easier"
> >"PRTF can support advanced features such as barcoding, font control,
> >embedded images/graphics, etc."
> >
> >Obviously, some (most?) of this is just a matter of personal
> preference, as
> >the "simpler and easier" is whichever they've used most.
> Otherwise, the
> >argument falls to capability, which PRTF wins without fail.
> Some feel that
> >being self-contained (O-spec in RPG) is an advantage during debug
> >situations, but again, I'm not sure that this is a real
> advantage.  I'm
> >having a hard time imagining other advantages or
> disadvantages, so if you
> >have opinions, feel free to tell me.
> >
> >tia,
> >
> >Eric DeLong
> >Sally Beauty Company
> >MIS-Project Manager (BSG)
> >940-898-7863 or ext. 1863
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
NOTICE:
All e-mail sent to or from this e-mail address will be received or otherwise
recorded by The Sharper Image corporate e-mail system and is subject to
archival, monitoring, review by and/or disclosure to Sharper Image security
and other management. This message is intended only for the use of the
addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the
views of The Sharper Image. If you are not the intended recipient,
dissemination of this communication is prohibited.