RE: RPG V?

This has been a great thread to follow.

I'd love to have better support for data structure arrays and being able to perform %lookup on them, however I have them defined. As it stands, whenever I have to work with DS arrays, I generally pull out a conference handout I got years ago about the intricacies of it. (It seems that my logical approach to them is generally not supported for lookups.)

Most of my gripes/concerns/wishes generally have to do with RDi. I sure do miss my 90-day trial. (Although my boss recently talked to me about 6.1 again... *crosses fingers*.)

That said, I can see the concerns with the time it may resources involved to convert RPG to a full free format language, but I do feel, as it seems with some others, that if you want the language to hold interest in future generations, give them a language they want to use. (Although I'm guessing that introduction to the language using RDi would go a long way vs an introduction to it via Green Screen.)

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Crosby
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 3:39 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: RPG V?

IBM? Over-engineer? Surely you jest.

<g>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 8, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Hans Boldt wrote:

>> Hindsight is always 20/20. A different pre-processor architecture
occurred to me long after I left RPG that would have satisfied SQL's
concerns, and offer the flexibility of the OS/2 inner/outer architecture

For me it wasn't strictly hindsight - but I was out of the immediate
loop at the time and by the time I heard that the design was going the
"wrong" way it was too late. At least some interface capabilities
were added. But of course even if the design you mention had been
proposed in time, it would have meant higher costs for Rochester and
there's no guarantee they'd have found the funding. Water under the
bridge.

>> Regarding "Open I/O", I'm looking forward to seeing what it is.
I'm hoping it's something that lives up to the hype, and not just some
warmed-over SPECIAL file support (which seems to be the consensus
among those of us who haven't signed an NDA).

Personally I'd be happy with updated SPECIAL file support, and I
suspect anyone expecting anything that is light years beyond that may
be a little disappointed. To me the critical part is that the new
support is not so over engineered that it locks out future
enhancements. Time will tell.


Jon Paris

www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (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/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.