|
I've encountered one small problem with CVTRPGSRC. It doesn't convert the INFDS format for the current line number correctly,... e.g. FFAX025PR O E PRINTER INFDS(LINE) leaves the format as Binary instead of Integer. D LINE DS D SPLF 83 92 D SPOOL# 123 124B 0 D CURLIN 367 368B 0 Should be: D LINE DS D SPLF 83 92 D SPOOL# 123 124I 0 D CURLIN 367 368I 0 If left as binary, you'll receive the following when you try to reference CURLIN,. "MCH1210 - Receiver value to small to hold result". And yes, it will compile without errors. Regards, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jon A. Erickson Viking Industries, Inc. <http://www.vikingindustries.com> http://www.vikingindustries.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <<Jon Erickson.vcf>> -----Original Message----- From: Stone, Brad V (TC) [mailto:bvstone@taylorcorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 12:32 PM To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' Subject: RE: RPG IV Step 1. CVTRPGSRC Step 2. Compile Step 3. Relax Bradley V. Stone Taylor Corporation - OASIS Programmer/Analyst bvstone@taylorcorp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: eric [SMTP:eric@norcov.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 1:20 PM > To: 'MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com' > Subject: RPG IV > > Jon, > You say that the conversion process for gong from RPG III to RPG IV > (not > full-blow ILE) is about 5 days. What educational resources did you use to > > accomplish this? Please advise. Thank you. > > Eric Kempter > CommAir Mechanical Services, Inc. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon.Paris@halinfo.it [SMTP:Jon.Paris@halinfo.it] > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 8:41 AM > To: Don > Cc: midrange-l@midrange.com > Subject: Re: *** ADMIN: Ok, one more time, a POLL on www.midrange.com > > OK Don - I'll bite. > > >Reasons not using RPG IV include: > > >No business reason to do the conversion. > > I'm constantly hearing about the RPG programmer shortage. I would have > thought that a language that has a minimal to non-existent learning curve > but brings significant productivity increases is reason enough. I would > say it's hard to find a business reason _not_ to do the conversion. Also > in this category, you're locking yourself out of almost everything new on > the system - IBM are not going to go on building CALL type APIs. > > Many people on this list complain about IBM lack of marketing etc. (and I > agree with that) but sometimes I wonder if this "it ain't broke so don't > touch it" attitude also contributes to the view of the box as "old > fashioned" (my turn to run and duck now <grin>) > > >Why all the extra DASD to do the same thing I'm doing now? > > By taking the option to compress observability I can finish up with lower > DASD usage. Even without that you have to have a lot of programs to use > up > a significant amount of space. Again the trade off is productivity > against > hardware. DASD is a hell of a lot cheaper than the hourly cost of your > brain. > > >Why all the extra hardware to do the same thing I'm doing now? (Based > on > >extra memory/cpu needed to push these new puppies) > > This varies and I've yet to meet anyone who thought that the increase was > not worth the effort. Admittedly this depends on your hardware - it's > more > likely to present a problem on CISC than RISC. However, if this was the > only criteria, everyone would still be using DOS or Win 3.1 > > >Why the extra learning curve to do what I have now and what works now? > > What learning curve ? Absolute outside it is 4 to 5 days to use the > compiler in compatibility mode. Note that I'm not advocating that > everyone > switch to full ILE etc. - but every journey starts with a single step. > > >And, you'll see that alot of this also applies to your JAVA question... > > Here I really have to strongly disagree with you. We're talking about a > situation where there is no conversion available (and you probably > wouldn't > want it anyway since we're talking about OO versus procedural) compared > with a simple command that does it for you. We're talking about the > difference in learning curve of 5 days (I'm being generous) versus 3 to 6 > months. I fully understand that a switch to Java does indeed need a real > good reason. Also other RPG programmers will undoubtedly be able to read > your RPG IV even if they haven't been "converted". They wouldn't be able > to read your Java. Sorry but this is a "chalk and cheese" comparison. > > > +--- > | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! > | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. > | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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 > +--- +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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 +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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 copyright@midrange.com.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.