|
Jon, Thank you, so much, for your insights. First of all, I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. I may have implied otherwise, but I woulda thought that was pretty obvious. In case there's any confusion, I run a Mom-and-Pop contract programming outfit, with my Wife. I have never met anyone at IBM, outside of Columbus and that was basically CEs more than 5 years ago. I've never been to COMMON, and have little to no private correspondence with folks inside the Community. I get most of my news from News/400 and scan the ComputerWorld and InfoWorld e-zines. All that to say... I'm not claiming ANY inside information of what goes on behind the scenes. I accept all you say, below, as facts. I wrote a post on the News/400 V5R1 RPG enhancements forum, back last May or whatever, and the post was (close to) "You need to take a different approach to the problem". I wrote that I had the same impression which you state below. I said that Rochester and Toronto needed to "get on the same page". I cited the example that when I heard Toronto was "waiting on code from Rochester, to implement numeric parm op-descriptors", that the situation was messed up. So when I said there was a difference in mindset, I have seen nothing in your post to contradict that. I may have implied I blame Toronto more than Rochester but, in actual fact, I have found it little to be gained by blaming anyone for anything. I have found errors in judgment, but that's from my POV only, in how the direction the 400 is going. We've all seen them, but may not agree on each of the items I list below: a) The hardware/OS/languages/tools are no longer integrated b) RPG has turned into C c) DDS, one of strongest assets of 400, left unenhanced d) IBM attempts to force users into a direction, by not enhancing their products in certain areas (OPNQRYF, DDS, SEU, and basically all the primary strengths of the platform) e) Compilers don't compile to MI anymore f) Ooops Nav g) Info-less Center h) QCMD getting no attention i) Daggone editors not sufficiently integrated with languages Obviously, this is just a few of the high-points of my objections to the direction BOTH Rochester AND Toronto are leading the 400. I think, from what I recall of your prior posts, you would agree with some (although maybe not all) of these objections. I don't see the problem as the fact that the experts on the 38 have retired. I see the problem as: when they re-wrote CPF in C++, they swelled the ranks of OS coders with "new blood". And that new blood figured they had better ideas than the "old fogeys" who originally designed the 38. I'm sure some of their ideas WERE better. But on balance, I say they had a lot to learn, but didn't... That intends nothing personal against any of these folks in Rochester and Toronto. That's merely an observation based on the direction the 400 is heading, at present. I'll give two examples. I'll go easy on the folks up in Toronto, because if you tell me they're good people, Jon, I take that on faith. However, they've turned RPG into C. IMV, the better direction would have been to take it in the direction of MI which is, IMV only, the superior approach to combining columnar and free-form coding. I remember a letter to the editor, when someone complained about losing having a column you can scan, to determine fields that are modified. He felt there was a place for the result field column. I distinctly remember the reply: "We've covered that already". The implication was that anyone who prefers a columnar approach is a moron. I beg to differ. In fact, I'll go far as to state that free-form coding is a throw-back, even though the entire industry says otherwise. I base that on one single solitary fact: Anybody who has ever designed a decent-looking screen intuitively knows what what stated in the _Handbook of Screen Design_ (written by somebody a decade or so ago, and periodically updated; I have 2nd edition, I know there was a 3rd edition 5 years ago). You design decent screens by lining up input fields in a column. A la SAA standards. A la the command prompter and every screen in CPF. Columns are "a good thing". But somewhere along the line, somebody decided RPG is a bad thing, because it's based on columns. I don't believe that. I believe that is it's strength. I've heard a fair chunk of the discussion on the advantages of making RPG free-form, and been reading it since RPG /free. I still don't buy it, because we don't design user-screens in a free-format style. Because it's hard to read and hard to use. Programmers are users. With V5R1, RPG is now free-form. In fact, this Community asked for it.. and they got it. I admire the RPG compiler developers for listening to their Community. Problem is.. these lists hardly reflect the marketplace. Other problem is, I have a sneaking suspicion RPG is looking more and more like C for one primary reason. The compiler is written in C. Another example: I don't much cotton to the LEAVE statement. (Which is to say, I avoid it.) Sorry, Nathan... We've never discussed it, so I don't know your views. But my view is that just because all so-called "modern" languages have it, doesn't mean RPG needed it. Somebody (it was Edsgar Dyskstra, among others, but I don't know how to spell his name) said that you can construct ALL program logic by sequential instructions, a DO statement, and an IF statement. I would allow some modifications to this view, but I would keep them as minimal as possible. IF, LEAVE, CAB, and GOTO are all fundamentally the same. Some are better than others. I would much more prefer LEAVESR, which has an definitive and easily spotted exit point than a LEAVE. But I mainly object to the idea that RPG needs all the, IMNSHO, worst features of C. I have great respect for the compiler developers, on balance. However, I've written a lot more RPG than they have. In retail, whole entire businesses sprout up and die off like mushrooms. So I can safely say: I've thrown out more code than the RPG compiler developers will ever write. Now.. I appreciate full-well that the RPG compiler developers are the 400 programmers' best friend. They're the stalwarts waging a defensive war, with no ammo, against EJB and all that crap that pretty much the entire industry supports. I think I appreciate their struggles fairly well, although I would have no clue what all it involves. For example, I have little doubt that the crew that was given the WebFacing project was given the task of coming up with something that ran in Websphere and ran under interactive. I firmly believe, but would have no way of knowing for sure, that this was a directive that was issued from above. IMV, that project was shot in both feet, if this was amongst the initial design goals. You can correct me, Jon, if you know otherwise. Have I read all the writings of George Farr, to know that WebFacing should be avoided...? No, I think I read a couple or three, maybe. But that was all that was necessary to see that what WebFacing is presenting is a new paradigm of programming. Maybe one the whole entire industry is supporting, but I think programming paradigms are sprouting and dying off like mushrooms. IMV, another paradigm is something that should be approached with caution. But given the assumed design goals, I doubt if there were any better alternative approaches. So whether or not I have an understanding of what the compiler-developers are up against, I do have a great deal of respect for their efforts. I may imply that I don't think their efforts are strong. Quite the contrary... However, I still think they're heading in the wrong direction, so are mis-guided. Another example would be compiling to W3 instead of MI. Now I understand, fully, the economics and politics behind that decision. It still stinks. So I understand there would be no benefit to anyone in Toronto objecting strongly to compiling to W3, given it was almost certainly a directive from higher up in the Software Group. I don't question whether anyone has the guts to raise strong objections against something that is politically impossible to fight against. But when RPG was being restructured as a free-form languange, it could have just as easily taken the approach of MI. But what happened was it basically became C, with strong I/O capabilities. The difference is that MI still has a component of being columnar, and IMV that approach was never seriously considered because of that. Because of the attitude that no serious programmer would prefer columns over indented IF statements. But IMV, anyone who has looked at RPG/Alive! would know that IFs can be documented quite easily with the editor. And IMV, anyone who has poored over RPG code for any length of time would notice that the proportion of time spent reviewing program structure is far less than the time analyzing how result fields get "wigged", or incorrectly updated. That has been my experience anyway. Good coders don't spend a lot of time matching IFs and ENDs. And those bugs are easier to discover than the field that doesn't have the correct value. I can almost hear the argument coming: "you don't understand the complexities of writing a compiler". As a matter of fact, I've seen that argument posted in various forms... Well.. I think I do. Do I have a Computer Science degree...? No. Do I know C...? Only seen it. Am I arrogant...? I don't think so. I still say I understand the complexities enough, and I also say that the language design is the most critical element anyway. I think optimisization is a very important specialty, and I don't slight that at all. But I think language design is key. I am more than willing to accept any and all comer's, if anyone wants to challenge statements in this paragraph... Go ahead... "Make my day..." I am still working on this write-up. I think I've pointed out a few of the examples where I think the 400, and RPG in particular, are headed in the wrong direction. I think this is basically due to people not respecting the wisdom of the user's of the 400, as much as anything else. I'm really not trying to cast blame around, but if that's what I'm doing I think I've shown there is plenty of blame to spread around. What I'm writing now is a further example of this. I may, or may not, post it. May, or may not, depend on responses to this post. It's starting to look like this is Part 1 of 3, rather than being half. May not get to part 3 anyway, though. (Shoulda probably re-read this thing, to see if it makes any sense, but I'm trying to get this done before too long...) My next post, if any, is about the Info-less Center. Now I'm sure some people think this is no fair. The Info-less Center is far, far to easy of a "target" to go after. The fact that few, if anybody, on this list feels that way, doesn't influence me one way or the other...;-) It is symptomatic of how SOME people at IBM do not respect the wisdom of the Community of people that use the computer. The Info-less Center is surely the easiest target, in the entire iSeries Division. But I think it's "fair game". Again, I mean no disrespect... But I've taken the "kid gloves" off. Thanks again for your comments, Jon! Hope I haven't made you sorry you wrote... ? jt "Have a GREAT day...! And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm) > -----Original Message----- > From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com > [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Jon Paris > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:24 PM > To: midrange-l@midrange.com > Subject: IBM's failure to provide AD tools > > > >> Thus, the languages and AD tools come out of Toronto... Now, these > days, distance means nothing, in theory. In actual practice, > your talking a > wide gap in mindset. > > I have to comment on this, although I should admit up-front that I am an > ex-Toronto (and ex-Rochester for that matter) developer. > > In my opinion - these days I find the Toronto crew have a far better > understanding of what their customers need/want than do most of the > Rochester developers I meet. The majority of the Rochester developers who > really understood what the 400 was all about are retired, or working for > BPs. Those who remain are Unix/Linux folks who happen to work on the 400. > If Rochester had their way there would probably be no RPG (or at least no > enhancements) there would be no Code/400, no VARPG, no WebFacing, > etc. etc. > The Java Toolbox, C/C++ and Ops-Nav would be about all there was. > > Following the infamous hamburger ad, it took Rochester a good two years to > understand that their RPG users could not afford to dump > everything and just > leap into Java (ignoring the fact that it wasn't a good idea > anyway). It is > only in the last 12 months or so that they have realized (in some quarters > at least) that they need to join the Toronto folks in trying to move > customers forward incrementally. > > Of course there are many in Software Group who neither know nor care about > the 400 - and because of that the 400 crew don't get the funding > or support > they need to really do their job. I fault Rochester for much of this - as > the platform owner, if they really care about their RPG users > they have the > ways and means to ensure that Software Group fully support them. The fact > that they don't should tell you something. The Toronto group > working on the > 400 are as dedicated to the platform as any group you'd find in Rochester. > I know many who have effectively risked their careers by > insisting that they > stay in the 400 arena and not work on AIX or whatever. > > As I said - just my opinion, but I do at least have some idea what goes on > behind the scenes. > > Jon Paris > Partner400 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) > mailing list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. >
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.