Re: i5/OS is better than Linux.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Steve Richter wrote:

On 4/11/07, Brian Lewis <brian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:23:58 -0400
"Steve Richter" <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In CL you can catch an exception that
is thrown by an RPG program. Can Perl catch Java exceptions?

Something I started wondering about: can CL catch Java exceptions on iSeries? My experience so far is no, it can't. AFAIK ILE C, RPG, and CL use their own exception model and don't share that with the exception model used by java and therefore don't catch java exceptions. I'm interested to hear differently.

If I'm correct, then it would weaken the argument that iSeries is so wonderful because of exception catching. CL's failure to catch java exceptions is no different than the failure of any language to catch them.

I don't know. That functionality may exist, or may not. It depends on
whether anyone ever needed that enough to create it.

I think it is more the case they cant do it without rewriting Linux
and breaking a lot of code. MSFT has to spend many $billions to
create .NET in order to get integrated exception, debugger and call
stack support.

Microsoft's efforts/successes/failures/smarts/stupidty has nothing to do with what linux can do.

IBM happens to have included such a facility. That's nice, but I don't
think it comes anywhere near to being valid support for a statement like
"i5/OS is better than Linux".

your probably right, but what functionality does Linux provide that
i5/OS does not? If i5/OS was allowed to run on p5 hardware, what
would be the advantage of running AIX instead of i5/OS?

As Brian mentioned, the list would be ridiculously long. Perusing through the Documentation directory of the kernel source tree should give you plenty of ideas.

I would add that RPG is closer to C in the way it works than any other
language. And RPG is better than C in that it has F specs, better
procedure prototypes, built in functions and better string handling.

How is having F specs "better"? How are the clunky procedure definitions of RPG "better"? how are the few BIFs in RPG "better" than the vast library of functions in glibc, gtk, and everything else in /lib and /usr/lib? The string handling is less worrisome as regarding out of bounds errors, so that's nice. But RPG is "better" than C? That's a really strange statement to make. What does "better" even mean? Better for writing kernel code? Better for writing data entry applications? Better for writing network software? Better for updating SQL tables?

James Rich

It's not the software that's free; it's you.
- billyskank on Groklaw