Re: Will IBM ever expand system object names?

The company I'm doing work for at this time has the entire company using green screens in their legacy software development base. Green screen and RPGLE and SQLRPGLE and SQL scripts. Maybe some future gig I can do the other stuff.

I note that Scott Klement has not chimed in on this thread, but I remember he has said that everything you can do with green screen, you can do it in a web page. I'm looking forward to that, depending on what time I have left and available and before the future slams into us.

Somebody mentioned having long names for RPG procedures. I worked about ten years ago for a software company in Nashville that had implemented strict rules to do all I/O using SQL procedures.

Raull's comments have inspired me to consider moving to using all RPG procedures, in place of program calls, and that way getting past the 10-character limit. I've gotten used to 3-character abbreviation combinations but using names as long as COBOL and the other languages use invite more meaning in the names.

Thanks Raul!



On 5/31/24 4:05 AM, Patrik Schindler wrote:

Hello Raul,

Am 30.05.2024 um 18:21 schrieb Raul Alberto Jager Weiler <raul.jager@xxxxxxxxx>:

Abandon the green screen

No. Never. My biased opinion.

using web allows a lot more flexibility, it is graphics, easy to use, no limit to the parameters, you can do wide reports, prints very nice, etc.

"Looks good in Powerpoint".

Those arguments have been exchanged numerous times, and there are arguments for and against doing so. What I have a hard time to follow is "do it because we should". From a hobbyist viewpoint this is akin to "because I can", but when you look at it wearing a tie, there's numbers involved. Directly and indirectly. Or, put in other words: Why create a solution for a problem which isn't there?

A lot better.

No. It's just different. If it's really "better" depends on secondary, surrounding factors, *including* personal taste.

:wq! PoC