RE: CL improvements -- MIDRANGE-L

How about a compilable version of rexx, which offers most of the
features CL lacks, and allows in-line CL and SQL statements too. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: email@james-w-kilgore.com [mailto:email@james-w-kilgore.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 8:42 AM
>To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
>Subject: Re: CL improvements
>
>
>Brad,
>
>Comments (and rants) inline... (get a cup of java, oh sorry, I meant to
>say coffee...)
>
>"Stone, Brad V (TC OASIS)" wrote:
>> 
>> I would say no as well.  We don't need programs written in 
>CL alone.  I hate
>> CLs that have screens in them.  Use RPG!
>
>IMHO, there is nothing "evil" about a parameter prompt screen within a
>batch CL driver.  I do agree that since RPG is not a wide spread
>language, CL has even narrower portability, so as you stated:
>
>> 
>> CL is what it is.. Control Language.
>
>Yes it is.  Each platform has it's own "control language".  Ok... some
>have more than one.  We could all dump CL for REXX. (yea, sure...it
>could happen <g>)  I recall entire applications that used RPG "driver"
>programs that handled everything.  I mean everything! They 
>were used for
>menus (with the ugly calls to qcmdexc). It can be done, but why?
>Clarity?  This was before the CAT op code!  UGGLLLY!
>> 
>> Now, if you were to look at the other side of the coin, 
>adding the ability
>> to perform CL from RPG would be a plus.  This is, of course, 
>without writing
>> your own procedures that do this (which works well anyhow).
>
>Brad, this is where I thought "integrated" language would lead 
>to. Heck,
>we've been able to call any language written program for years.
>"Integrated", when I first read the intro letters, meant, to me, direct
>execution.  Maybe in addition to the new "CF" spec a "CL" spec 
>(freeform
>of course) would be welcomed.
>
>In defense of CL, it does what it was designed to do very well.  It's
>just a tool.  
>
>Maybe the question should -not- be "How do you wish to enhance CL?",
>but: "Why CL?".
>
>What do you think? JAVA as a "control language"?  It has a JIT compiler
>so it's not as bad as OCL/JCL/REXX/BAT files.  BASIC? (Well, don't
>laugh, it was JIT compiled since the S/34)
>
>It could happen ... pigs could fly ... <g>
>
>Sorry, I got carried away there for a moment. Whew.
>
>Oh yes, CL is the topic.
>
>IMHO, we, as the professional community, are faced with classic
>transitions of the "CL" de jour.  The geezers learned JCL, others OCL,
>maybe got a taste of CL on the S/38, some got our jollies with REXX,
>others claim PERL is the new sliced bread.  Been TCL'ed? (that's
>tickled)
>
>So, maybe I agree, why enhance CL.  What's its future in the ILE
>paradigm?  Even if all enhancements were delivered, we would still have
>a platform dependent solution. Is that really a desired goal?
>+---
>| 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
+---