Re: CL enhancements

** Reply to note from Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@ttec.com> Wed, 18 Feb 1998 23:13:39

>  If a language requires you to kludge basic operations, then it's a
> hinderance to programmer productivity.  If I have to create multiple
> objects w/ their additional runtime, storage, source management and
> maintenance overhead, then it s/b fixed.  It is considered crippled.  We
> need CL. There is currently not a good replacement (including REXX).

Of course we need CL. It would even be very nice if it got some new stuff.
But I don't have your point of view at all.

For one thing, since what I use CL for primarily is programatic access to
OS functions as well as process control, I always feel like improvements
in the OS functions _are_ improvements to CL. 

For another, I don't often feel like I need to kludge anything. In fact, I
feel like CL is pretty straightforward. 

Now, I haven't done much with ILE CL, but can't the CLLE modules be linked
in just like RPG ones? Wouldn't that effectively handle your request?
Sure, it is more of including CL features into RPG, but the effect is to
give you the best of both worlds.

Where I am at, we have not implemented such solutions because we follow
standards set by our mother company. However, it is certainly within those
standards to mix CL and RPG in the "old fashioned way" and this certainly
has allowed for great flexability. 

>>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?
>  Just because you have found a way around deficiencies doesn't mean they
> don't exist.  We think we are clever when we find a way around a
> limitation, but it often makes for difficult to read code and costs your
> company time and $$$.  Example:  Remember your RPGII or RPGIII routines to
> center text using an array?  It's not easy to follow.  Contrast that to the
> new RPG opcodes that can do the task in a clear, concise fashion.

Excuse me, but I did not say I "found a way around them." I said I hadn't
noticed a need for them. Not that I wouldn't like them. But I haven't
noticed a _NEED_ for them. 

Look, what I am saying is that I sure don't think tossing more op codes
into CL seems like a high priority to me. I only notice the fact that I
can't use more than one file or whatever about twice a year. Usually, I am
coding along in RPG and realize that I want to do something I think is
valid for CL and code it. 

Actually, I was trying in a round about fashion to say, "Why don't you
consider that maybe you are looking at it wrong. Maybe you should be
embedding your CL into applications which have all the op codes you are
looking for." Being round about wasted a lot of your and my time. 

>  I mean strategic importance, not programming importance.  The latter is
> clearly evident.

Nope.

>  -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
+---