RE: framework question

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)
> 
> Joe, I am just trying to counter your quick reply's that RPG is as
elegant
> in the namespace arena as Java.

Aaron, I never said that.  It really gets to be a waste of time talking
with you when you start sticking words in my mouth, and then arguing
with them!  All I said was that name spaces can be done just as EASILY
in RPG.  Where you got "RPG is as elegant in the namespace arena as
Java" is utterly beyond me.  In case you haven't figured it out yet,
elegance in code is not very high on my scale of requirements.  You want
elegance?  Take up ballroom dancing.


> I am trying to get facts, not off the cuff
> opinions, because our shop is making serious considerations of moving
to
> Java (for where it fits).

Facts about what?  Style or substance?  I already explained in great,
nattering detail where I prefer RPG and why, with concrete reasoning.
You come back with "it's not as nice".  Sorry, but you're the one with
the off the cuff blanket statements.


> >From the small amount of Java I have done and the large amount of RPG
> *SrvPgms, I can say that the two do not have even close to the same
> "namespace" concept.

And as I said before, who cares?  If you take even a small amount of
time with your naming, you can create your own namespace with little or
no trouble.  The package concept of Java is better, sure, but its
overkill for RPG today.

Unless Charles' concept of huge libraries of third-party RPG comes to
pass, you're just as well off creating your own name space.

Anyway, there's no right or wrong answer here, and I'm not going to get
sucked into another elegance debate.  It's pointless.  You want
namespaces, great.  Vive la elegance!

Joe