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

True, but look at it another way.

RPG IV syntax has just been introduced. It was far more educational to me
to take an RPG III program that I knew _intimately_ through a 3rd party RPG
IV converter and play with it than it would have been to write RPG IV from
scratch.

Note that I said a 3rd party converter, not the IBM command.

--
Jeff Crosby
UniPro FoodService/Dilgard
P.O. Box 13369
Ft. Wayne, IN 46868-3369
260-422-7531
www.dilgardfoods.com

The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily the opinion of my
company.  Unless I say so.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-
bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Albert York
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:53 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: 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.

--
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.