RE: Free Form RPG Opinions Wanted

<joe>
Yes, but if you extended the various commands to support the extended factor
2, this argument would evaporate.  And it's not like you're adding any new
concepts; all the parsing is already being done for free-form.
</joe>

Wouldn't the compiler team have to start versioning outside of the OS then?
Otherwise if they made enhancements like that currently, you would have to
go to V5Rx anyway, so why _not_ use /free.

Just my opinion, but I don't think they should attempt to add new
functionality to existing "releases" of RPG ever.  For RPG to stay as a main
language in many shops it has to accelerate very fast, and that can't be
done by trying to keep older "releases" up to date. Make the jump or just
use what V4Rx has to offer.

Why do companies have to add new languages to their roster?  Because RPG
can't handle it, or maybe more appropriately, it just doesn't make sense to
write certain pieces in RPG.  The more/faster enhancements are made for RPG
the longer mainstay it will have.  

**note Most of my comments come from having to do communications programming
in RPG (EDI, Web Services, xml, etc).

Just my opinion though,
Aaron Bartell

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Pluta [mailto:joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 10:49 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Free Form RPG Opinions Wanted


> From: Douglas Handy
>
> Try the RPG Reference Manual :)
>
> Hans and/or Barbara have also stated as much on this list and elsewhere.
>
> The problem is lack of space in fixed format specifications.  For
> example, take
> the file operations like CHAIN.  In fixed format, you can only
> specify a field
> name or a klist name as the search argument.
>
> In free-form you can do those OR a list of values (a:b:c+2), or %KDS().

Yes, but if you extended the various commands to support the extended factor
2, this argument would evaporate.  And it's not like you're adding any new
concepts; all the parsing is already being done for free-form.

So, I propose an (x) extender for all supported opcodes (such as CHAIN)
which would make the extended factor two have the same syntax as "the rest
of the line" in free format.  This would allow fixed-format folks (who need
the MOVE instruction, or whatever else) to take advantage of all the nice
new BIFs, while at the same time provide a clear upgrade path.

There's no dual maintenance, since the code already exists, so that's not an
issue.  Instead, it's providing a great deal more flexibility, removing
possible conflicts between the two syntaxes and allowing a cleaner migratory
path.

Joe

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