• Subject: Re: Move an entire record format as a whole
  • From: "Bob Cozzi" <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 14:13:19 -0500

Just for the record. I think that are far more important things needed in
RPG IV than CF specs. I also think using "CF" just because the prompter
already uses "CX" for the EVAL prompt is silly. I have suggested using
another character, such as X so that it could be an "X-spec".

Let me point out my issues with completely free-format changes to RPG IV.

In training programmers in RPG IV I find that they run into one consistent
issue: Management limiting their ability to use RPG IV because they (the
management) then has to support applications in different languages. In
other, because RPG IV is different from RPGIII, people are being
restricted from using it.

Now, add the X-spec to RPG IV. What happens? You not only have two different
languages that management needs talent on, there is a 3rd variation. Hence,
they need talent in 3 areas. It is too difficult to fill those voids for
various reasons.

Using CodeStudio or Code/400, I don't need the extra space to type in a
freaking %SUBST or whatever. What I need as an RPG IV programmer, is
enhancements to the language feature set and fixes to implementation flaws.
I have said this before, I don't know how many comments I get concerning the
complexities in coding (for example) an Externally Described Data Structure
SUBFIELD.

Hans, remember the System/38? Remember the security model? Originally they
implemented effectively all the security controls you have today (with some
exceptions). It took 6 to 8 years before many S/38 programmers began to
understand the security model. There was too much there to understand all at
once (back then) so we didn't bother.

With Fixed Format RPG III, Fixed Format RPG IV, partial free-format RPG IV
we have enough complexity. With the addition (today) of the X-spec, we add
one more decision making issue and another layer of complexity.

Does this mean that X-specs should never be implemented? Not at all. I just
think they are at least 2 to 5 years out, and that implementing new features
and functions (such as keywords on the Output spec) are more important than
yet another way to do CHECKR.

Bob Cozzi
www.rpgiv.com



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* This is the RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List!  To submit a new         *
* message, send your mail to "RPG400-L@midrange.com".  To unsubscribe   *
* from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com and specify       *
* 'unsubscribe RPG400-L' in the body of your message.  Questions should *
* be directed to the list owner / operator: david@midrange.com          *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].