Re: what was the single mgmt decision made in mid-1990s. period

I can't see the advantage of rewriting MOVE and indicator usage in existing programs. New programs should use the new techniques and old programs should be changed as needed when they are maintained. But where's the justification for rewriting the existing programs. At a practical level a MOVE does the same thing as an assignment ans SETON does the same thing as a BIF. You're not making the program run any differently, you're only making the source look different.

Albert

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Perkins" <jrperkinsjr@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: what was the single mgmt decision made in mid-1990s. period
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:36:45 -0800


Very true Jon.

I have 2 main ISV's I deal with on a regular basis. Both are now using RPGLE
programs, but most of it is just converted from RPG III source members. I
hesitate to consider it RPG IV when I still see MOVE being used and
indicators over %FOUND() or other BIF's.

The ISV's don't really want to take the time to do it right. They just want
the fast solution of running their old code through a fancy CVTRPGSRC.
That's not a fix, it's just a bandage.

Also, I think IBM has given us options for a GUI. They had Visual Age, which
no one really adopted. They have HATS (I'm not personally a fan), they have
WebFacing. There are WebSphere solutions, JSF, JSP, servlets, etc. Now they
even have EGL. There are options, it just takes some extra/different
programming.

James R. Perkins
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.