Re: QCMDEXC question

[Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

James,

At 02:24 AM 1/30/98 -0800, you wrote:

>> >I don't believe I would necessarily classify this as a CL shortcoming;
>> >for sure ILE CL is not considered a language of minimal usage that is
>> >not being "fixed" and enhanced.
>>
>>  I have to disagree w/ both of the above statements.
>>
>> 1)  How can you say that a bug w/ a workaround is not a shortcoming?  And
>> yes, it is a bug!

>>     This does not sound like IBM is serious about enhancing CL.

>Mark,
>
>While I agree with your statements about the shortcomings of CL as an
>"application language" I'm left wondering if that was _ever_ the languages
>intent.  IMHO I've always viewed CL as a program wrapper.

 It is that and a can be quite a bit more.


>It may be time for us to look at another "callable" for the command
processor and
>CL may not be the best suited for the ILE environment.

 Why not?  CL is a natural on the /400 and is a decent control language.
It's pretty hard to get away from it.  It's not a bad language, but it can
be a lot better.  It seems silly that you have to call another pgm and jump
through some hoops if you want to process two files.


>I'm struggling with letting go of CL for the shear fact that my S/3x
background
>has conditioned me to willingly accept a OS unique language to drive my
>applications.  Maybe with ILE we have gained another choice.

 I have come to realize that there is no silver bullet in I.T., so just use
the best tools you have available and become good at it.  Our chosen
platform is the /400.  Let's make it the best we can.  Asking IBM for some
enhancements to CL is not unreasonable, IMHO.

 -mark

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---