Re: CL enhancements -- MIDRANGE-L

** Reply to note from Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@ttec.com> Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:09:54


>  OK, maybe I was jumping to conclusions as to the *reason* CL hasn't seen
> much in the way of enhancements, but the facts are there.  CL as a language
> has hardly been touched.  We have many areas that we must kludge to work
> properly.  A few examples: Mupltiple files opened, closing and opening a
> file, working w/ various unsupported data types, loop control structures, etc.

Hey, I agree that there are plenty of features that could be added to or
enhanced in CL. I think my point about is that I haven't ever been unable
to implement something just because CL lacks a feature. If I really insist
on multiple files being process in CL, I use nested CLs. But, I don't
really feel the need to do that much, since I just implement any complex
file process in RPG and just call CL programs from there. (RPG makes a
good CL program wrapper).

>  When a language is missing some basic elements (see above), no one should
> have beat IBM over the head to get them to recognize its deficiencies.  The
> IBM developers all agree that there are quite a few areas that need
> improving.  We are not talking about niceties.  We are talking about basic
> laguage constructs.

I very much don't mean to be rude. But if these basic language constructs
are so important how come I haven't noted the need for them?

Now, don't take that to mean I have never wanted to close and reopen a
file in CL! I sure have. Maybe once or twice a year I might find myself in
a situation where that's the corner I've coded into and I have to nest a
process or some such. 

Maybe to some people those things seem like niceties because the ways to
accomplish the same thing aren't that much more difficult. Usually, you go
into a project knowing what kind of result you are after and, if you have
a good understanding of what CL and RPG can provide, your design doesn't
leave you wanting a feature that doesn't exist. 

>  When IBM feels it's important, they will do it.  We've been asking for

I think that's true. The key is to demonstrate it's importance.

>  The only motivation I can come up with is that it's not directly a big
> money maker.  Can you come up w/ another after so long?

Sure, IBM has only so many programmers. There is a shortage of good
programmers right now. They have set their priorities on things that the
OS needs.

I would love to see new features in CL also. But if IBM called me up
tomorrow and said, "Hey, Chris, some programmers got done with a task they
were up to and we are ready to reassign them. Should we put them to work
adding DO loops to CL or start them on bringing AS/400 SQL support up a
few notches?" I'd vote for SQL. It has a greater impact on my future
coding and the AS/400's future in general.

It could be that I just don't see the real importance of the features you
list. I am happy to grant that possibility. God knows I don't have enough
time to look at all the different angles. So, if you have looked at both
sides of this coin and you _KNOW_ that these CL features are needed and
will generate product growth or whatever, then I wish you all the luck in
the world demonstrating that to IBM. 

>  -mark
 

Chris Rehm
Mr.AS400@ibm.net

How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business?
Get an AS/400.
root
+---
| 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
+---