> Rob: >I find the flexibility in RPG, more >functionality with the API's, etc the >way to go. One of the main drawbacks in >CL were the structure limitations, and the >variable types with API interaction. It >does look like they are addressing this. >Frankly I look at RPG more of using the >right tool for the job. I definitely find >wrapping nearly every RPG program into a >CL rather silly. Especially with the later >F spec keywords for overriding, etc. I >do think that some people try to stretch >CL into places it really shouldn't be. To me, CL has always been one of OS/400's strengths -- an integrated command language accessing a rich, logical, consistent operating system command set. CL is often the right tool for the job. I do, however, agree that some folks abuse CL instead of writing a decent high-level program. RPG is a high (OK, medium-high) level language once designed around operation of an ISAM database. Even with its many functional and structural enhancements writing an RPG program to manipulate the OS can look as nasty as trying to create complex data structures in CL. API's are a mixed bag, for me. Some OS interfaces need the depth of an API. Still I'm surprised when an API is produced for something that should have been built into a nice RTVxxxxxx command (particularly if I can't wait for the next release of TAATOOLS). OS/400 traditionally provided a simple interface allowing developers and sys admins to work with the system through intuitive commands with built in documentation rather than researching API's. I think that much API programming is better suited to environments without an integrated command language accessing a rich, logical, consistent operating system command set -Jim James P. Damato Manager - Technical Administration Dollar General Corporation (615) 855-4375 <mailto:jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.