I'm not Simon (but I have played him on TV ...)
My biggest annoyance with COBOL is that you cannot export a nested
program (or have multiple "programs" in a single source) and allow it
to be called from outside. There are also restrictions on how nested
programs work but that's a different issue.
In RPG if I have a group of related subprocedures I can place them all
in one source where they can share any "service" functions that are
common to the group. The architecture of ILE COBOL does not permit
that. It was supposed to (I wrote the original outline design
document) but it wasn't implemented that way.
This just makes it very clumsy when trying to implement that kind of
functionality. Way more source files than need be and access to
Globals even when useful/justified.
Other annoyances are lack of prototyping (with resulting programmer
dependent parameter matching) etc.
On the other hand I would love RPG to have COBOL's ability to pass
parameters by copy (like RPG's CONST but it _always_ happens)
Just my 2 cents worth.
On 30-Sep-09, at 10:08 PM, MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
What's so different about the ILE architecture of COBOL vs RPG? RPG
allow you to code subprocedures like function which is very cool.
you can still perform the same function by using 'CALL PROCEDURE'. My
recollection is that the structure of the program objects is the same.
I've written several programs to take advantage of this when I want to
hide internal procedures within a service program.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.