|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Harris" <spanner@ihug.co.nz> > > with all due respect, I can't see how CFINT prevents programmers from using > any technique that is available to them with the development tools they have. > > > Don't get me wrong - I think IBM has botched both their pricing model and > the presentation of the artificial limits imposed to simulate different > hardware capacities, but arguing that CFINT restricts programmers is rather > bizarre from my point of view. > > True, it restricts them from doing things as they have ALWAYS done them, > but it certainly doesn't constrain them in the way you are implying. > Hi Evan, If you code in C++ the way that is best, that is by encapsulating everything in classes, where strings are a class, allocated memory is another class, an array is vector template, etc,... such a pgm will be/could be very well written and easily maintainable, .... but will take a lot of cpu to run. Running such a pgm on a 50 CPW system will not cut it. Especially a system with many users. The end result: pgms are not written in this manner, vendors dont supply the tools needed, the add on function libraries, iSeries programmers dont learn OOP. Kind of the way the iSeries market is and has been. No ? Steve Richter
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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 [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.