RE: open source rpg compiler

<Hans>
As far as trying to use newer technologies with RPG, if RPG is a 
poor fit, then by all means use a different tool. For many newer 
technologies, piling enhancements onto a traditional, compiled, 
procedural language like RPG isn't always the best way to work.
</Hans>

I 100% agree with you, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many
AS/400 shops that have the time and staff capable of making that switch.  I
am finding myself writing extra stuff in RPG because it doesn't comunicate
with Java very well.  For instance if I write an email app in Java I _can
use those classes in RPG but I _don't_ because it is way to slow.  So I end
up putting the Java email app on an HTTP server as a servlet and then have
to write an RPG HTTP XML layer to talk with it (which is anything but
joyous).

<Hans>
Well, you can take the C++ approach and learn individual OO features 
one at a time. But you still wouldn't be doing OO design and 
programming. . .
</Hans>

Yes, you would be doing OO programming without even knowing it.  At least
with Java, you can't program in it without touching OO (from what I have
done anyway).  For instance, I have yet to create an interface, but I use
Sun's all the time (SQL related interfaces).

<Hans>
...It's not like moving from a fixed form RPG to a free 
form RPG. It's a whole different way of thinking. It's practically 
like a different religion, where even fundamental concepts of 
reality may be different.
</Hans>

I wont disagree with you here.  It is a new way of thinking, but it makes
you such a better programmer as a result.  Even if you never get to use OO
languages.

Aaron Bartell

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Boldt [mailto:boldt@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 2:03 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: open source rpg compiler


Again, Eric provided some good answers to your questions. So I'll 
just add a few new points.

Bartell, Aaron L. (TC) wrote:
> I think RPG would have to make an attempt at being OO before you could say
> it is never a good idea.  Don't take this personally, but trying to use
> newer technologies with RPG is kludgy right now.

The best and easiest to use OO languages are OO through and through. 
That is, everything is an object. For example, in Python, even 
classes and functions are objects. Merge OO features into compiled 
procedural languages, and you end up with a mish-mash. C++ is the 
extreme example of that. Java is much better than C++, but still 
there are some data types are language primitives and not actually 
objects.

As far as trying to use newer technologies with RPG, if RPG is a 
poor fit, then by all means use a different tool. For many newer 
technologies, piling enhancements onto a traditional, compiled, 
procedural language like RPG isn't always the best way to work.

> 
> You don't have to start from ground zero of an application architecture to
> get immediate gains with OO.  Yes your software might be re-written over
> time, but you don't have to do a complete re-write.

Well, you can take the C++ approach and learn individual OO features 
one at a time. But you still wouldn't be doing OO design and 
programming. It's not like moving from a fixed form RPG to a free 
form RPG. It's a whole different way of thinking. It's practically 
like a different religion, where even fundamental concepts of 
reality may be different.

Cheers! Hans


_______________________________________________
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.