IBM's failure to provide AD tools

jt, a lot of what you write is clearly your opinion and what I think of it
doesn't matter a hoot, but there are a couple of serious misconceptions in
what you wrote that I will comment on.

 >> 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.

Any business has to cost justify what they do.  In this case while I would
love to see Rochester fully implement descriptors, the fact that Toronto
would like them is irrelevant.  Even if the RPG compiler was built in
Rochester they still wouldn't have done it - mostly I suspect because Java
doesn't need it.

 >> a) The hardware/OS/languages/tools are no longer integrated

If you mean that the tools now run on PCs I can't disagree.  Personally I
think that is a good thing.  Anyone still using SEU is (IMO) not being as
productive as they could be.

 >> b) RPG has turned into C

Or COBOL, or Java, or Pascal.  People tend to specify whatever language they
most dislike.  I disagree.  RPG is still RPG, but it has grown up and
sprouted chest hairs.  I may not like all of what has been done, but it has
for the most part retained the essence of the language.

 >> e) Compilers don't compile to MI anymore

Correct - and for me that is a good thing.  MI is way too "lumpy" and does
not lend itself to optimization.  See also W3 comments later.

 >> g) Info-less Center

100% agreed - you'll have to pry my softcopy V4R3 CD out of my cold dead
hands!

 >> h) QCMD getting no attention

I haven't a clue as to what you mean unless you mean CL enhancements which
are coming.

 >> i) Daggone editors not sufficiently integrated with languages

If Code/400 were any more integrated with RPG you'd be out of a job.  I just
don't know what you mean here.

 >> ..... And that new blood figured they had better ideas than the "old
fogeys" who originally designed the 38.

Not really.  In the "old" days there were a fairly large group of folks in
Toronto and Rochester known as the DCG (Design Control Group) whose job was
to make sure that all the pieces of the system were in sync.  e.g If
Rochester implemented x in the database then RPG and COBOL had to implement
it.  For a number of reasons (mostly timeliness of new function and costs)
that function was cut way back in the late V2 timeframe.  It still exists
but is not the guiding force that it was.

 >> However, they've turned RPG into C.

I've already agreed to disagree on that front.

 >> 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.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.  MI is way too arcane for the kind of
development most RPGers do.

 >> The implication was that anyone who prefers a columnar approach is a
moron.

Personally I think a columnar approach is outdated.  It is a throw back to
the fixed position plug boards it replaced.  The crucial point here though
(and the one you ignore in all of your comments in this area) is that you
can still write RPG that way if you want!  No one has taken that away!!

 >> I base that on one single solitary fact:  Anybody who has ever designed
a decent-looking screen intuitively ...... Columns are "a good thing".

Sorry but I think this comparison is seriously flawed.  Writing programs is
much closer to writing a novel than filling in the blanks in an order entry
screen.

 >> 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.

This wasn't the community they listened to.  If that had been the case then
RPG IV would have been fully free-form from the very beginning.  It was
because the bulk of the community (outside these lists) had educated
themselves to the joys of free form and were asking for more and more
function there that the developers responded.  I have letters I wrote way
back before V3R1 where I predicted that exactly that would happen.

 >> Another example:  I don't much cotton to the LEAVE statement.

Neither do I, but it is an attempt to get people away from using GOTO and at
least into a somewhat structured alternative.  It has nothing to do with C.

 >> 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 don't believe so.  It runs under WAS because it was too expensive to
re-invent the wheel in terms of a middleware layer and they could leverage
developments on other platforms by going this way.  If it was "from above"
do you really think they'd be working on a Tomcat version?  As to running
under interactive -sorry but it was designed to run in batch but the brakes
haven't been taken off yet.

 >> Another example would be compiling to W3 instead of MI.  Now I
understand, fully, the economics and politics behind that decision.  It
still stinks. ......  given it was almost certainly a directive from higher
up in the Software Group.

Wrong again.  We had to _fight_ "higher up" to do it - for years.  Without
it there could never have been an RPG IV, there wouldn't be Java (yes I know
you probably don't care).  The benefits so far outweigh the disadvantages
that it is not even a close thing.

 >> The difference is that MI still has a component of being columnar, and
IMV that approach was never seriously considered because of that.

ROTFL. I'm sorry - most of the fights we had were with people who wanted
total free-form - we fought to have a hybrid approach that kept the old
fixed form while adding some free-form elements.  Again you completely
overlook the fact that fixed form is still there.
Don't like free form?  Don't use it!  It's real simple.

 >> Thanks again for your comments, Jon!  Hope I haven't made you sorry you
wrote...  ?

No but maybe you type a lot faster than me.  I'm afraid I don't have the
time for dealing with this length of epistle.  There were just so many
mis-spokes in what you said .........

If you want to comment further how about a few _small_ notes??

Jon Paris
Partner400