Re: DDS Support

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

James,

At 6/30/00 01:36 AM -0700, you wrote:
> Well, actually, not running, I am sort of
> trotting, maybe briskly
> walking, into SQL and JAVA. ;) It's the whole print thing and stuff
> like
> level breaks that are holding me back. I still have a lot of
> RPG/CL/DDS
> clients to support, but I am given liberty (without budget) to try
> out
> different approaches.

 Then you're luckier than many us!  I'm all for practical,
forward change.  I'm against change for the sake of change,
especially one that doesn't fully replace the functionality of what we
already have.  

 A positive example of change would be RPG IV.  It provides all
the functionality of RPG/400 and a whole lot more.  IBM also
provided a simple, but functional conversion utility.

 A negative example of change would be the discontinuance of OV/400
(with all its warts).  The stated migration path is Notes, which
doesn't have all the functionality of OV/400 and there doesn't seem to be
a migration utility yet (correct me if I'm wrong) to make the migration
easier.

 IMHO, the SQL falls mostly into the latter category.


> Maybe when I get up to speed on SQL I'll have
> a better appreciation for
> the "missing" parts you mention.  But, again, I stand by
> the premise
> that if you have your own tool for data definition, you can control
> the
> creation of DDS or SQL (of any flavor or limitation) and not have 
> to
> worry or care about if IBM makes enhancements to DDS, which I think
> is
> what started this discussion.

 You seem to be assuming that all / most shops have some sort of
code generator to do the work for them.  In my experience this is
not the case.  


> Personally I could care less about -how- I
> must define a file, my issue
> is whether I can automate the process.  With the proper tools, you
> can
> become platform or implementation independent.  IMHO, DDS is just
> a
> particular platform, and from what you tell me, IBM's SQL is just a
> particular implementation.

 My contention is that the hard work has already been done by the
DB2 folks.  Putting the additional functionality into DDS should be
relatively trivial.


> Maybe my view point was slanted by my
> first mentor that made a simple, yet profound (to me anyway)
> statement:
> "Programs -are- data."  For a compiler writer a source
> program is the
> input, for a tool writer the program is the output.  The same can
> be
> said for DDS or SQL or IDDU or whatever the world throws at us
> next.

 So you're putting the burden on the tool writers??   I
don't that's fair either, but as I mentioned above, most shops don't seem
have these tools anyway.

 BTW, while the quote you mentioned is an interesting view of
programs, it must be anecdotal, since the common usage of programs does
not fall into the description of "Programs -are- data."

 -mark