Re: Why MI? (Was: MI programmers list? Interested?)

Jim wrote:
>I think the problem is, most of us don't have a C compiler on the
>box.  I know I don't, nor do any of the other 2 AS/400's we're
>using.  It comes down to you use what you have, whether it's
>best or not.  If I had a C compiler I would use it.  I don't have it,
>so I'm not going to.

I've always believed in using the appropriate tool for
the task at hand.  To me, for most of the reasons people
use MI, C is the more appropriate tool.

To me, MI is a relic of the S/38 CISC architecture.
Certainly, at least a few people thought it was a good
idea at the time (late 1970's), but it has been superceded
by more current technology.  In the S/38 and CISC AS/400's,
it was the closest thing we had to an assembler language.
In the current RISC machines, the "assembly language" is C.

I can certainly understand using MI when C is not available.
But I just don't want to encourage it.

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.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
+---