RE: Adoption of new RPG techniques

> From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Everything you said sounds like good programming, yet those who have
> relegated themselves to playing checkers on the porch of the general
store
> would say that you shouldn't use anything that wasn't in RPGII because
> someone may have to maintain it.

Rob, this is cute and sarcastic, but who was it directed at?  Is there
someone on the list who fits this description?  I know it ain't me, 'cuz
I use procedures, and ILE, and APIs - heck, I just published a book on
Eclipse - so I'm hardly sitting on the back porch.  In fact, the only
thing I DON'T use is /free.

(Oh, and I'm not very good at service programs, which *IS* a shortcoming
on my part.)

Looking around, I don't see anyone else saying anything about using RPG
II for maintainability.  I have made comments about maintainability,
because that's crucial.  Anyone who doesn't code for maintainability is
a code cowboy, as I said.  But maintainable doesn't mean not using new
features, and I don't think anyone here said anything like that.

So I wonder why you found it necessary to equate maintainability with
RPG II?  Are you saying that maintainability is an outdated concept?

Joe