On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:29 PM Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have genuinely appreciated people showing me the 'Pythonic way' to
write Python code. I believe it's fair to say that CALL/PARM is the 'IBM
i' way to write IBM i code. We can, and do, depart from that norm, but
when we do, it looks funny :-)
Is it really fair to say that? Is it not another mindset problem?
When someone tells you your Python code isn't Pythonic, they are
telling you that what you are trying to accomplish in Python can be
done in a more elegant way, or a way which is closer to what the
language design encourages, or a way which has come to be the
preferred way by Python experts who have the benefit of experience.
Are you then saying that if I am trying to accomplish something on the
IBM i (such as building a Web application), that the more elegant way,
the way that IBM i is designed to support, and the way that experts
have coalesced around, is to do everything (or as much as possible)
with CALL/PARM? Because otherwise it "looks funny"? Imagine the giant
pile of funny-looking that is a JavaScript application built on
Node.js, running on the i!
Your comparison is tantamount to saying "anything that isn't
database-oriented business logic on the back end and 5250 green screen
on the front end looks funny". Or, if not *quite* that drastic, then
"anything that isn't written in CL, RPG, COBOL, and maybe some C,
looks funny".
Um, OK. Maybe, I guess? That way of thinking certainly doesn't do
anything to dispel the notion that IBM i is just a rebadged AS/400,
which is just basically a tweaked System/38, which is basically just a
small mainframe, and the only thing mainframes are good for is stodgy,
old-fashioned data processing and text-based data entry.
That's a mindset problem in itself, no?
John Y.
midrange.com
