RE: OOing RPG was RE: open source rpg compiler

>From: David Gibbs [mailto:david@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>I happen to concur with Joe on this ... OO discussions don't apply to RPG 
>(currently), with the exception of how RPG interfaces with Java.

I must disagree on two points. First, some members on this list have,
obvious, input into the direction and capabilities of RPG, and to that end a
conversation about the possible capabilities of the language are important
and topical. Afterall, if we don't express our desires and leave it to Hans
we'll all be coding free-form RPG that looks like Python <G>

And second, while RPG may not itself be an OO language that doesn't mean
that you can't apply OO concepts to your programs today. There are many
"pillars" of OO-ness, but one of the more important is that of encapsulation
-- of the idea that an "object" know HOW to do a task, you just need to tell
it WHAT to do. 

Take a trigger, rather than have to remember every little detail that goes
into a process we encapsulate these details into a common module and reuse
it. If I write an order into the order master from RPG and a trigger (also
written in RPG) copies that order into another database for access from the
web, or copies that order to a Linux warehouse management system, or e-mails
a confirmation of that order to the customer I don't care. My RPG program
"told" the order to create itself, the details behind what that means aren't
of interest to me. That's encapsulation, that's OO, that's today!

-Walden

PS. I'm going to assume that your comments at this point are those of a
member in the list and not as the moderator saying "stop now." If the
latter, please clarify and I'll shut up, it is, afterall your list.

------------
Walden H Leverich III
President
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x11
(208) 692-3308 eFax
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com 

Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)