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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.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: >firstname.lastname@example.org >+--- > +--- | 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: email@example.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.