Geeze! How about we ask Rochester to add database I/O support to CL? Would that make all the CF-spec "nuts" happy? I mean come on! Even John Carr (who originally suggested "CF") doesn't think it is a necessary feature. IBM Toronto has indicated that "most" people want the "CF-spec". However, I wonder if it is "most" people, or just the majority of the people that answered their question. After all, if you DON'T want it or DON'T care about it, why bother telling Toronto? I mean, "most" people that answer the question are going to want the CF spec. Don't get me wrong, I'm prefer natural expression syntax than the limitations that traditional RPGII style code provides. But I just don't see how supporting: RPGIII RPG IV and RPG IV with CF-spec is going to encourage IT Managers to supporting moving to RPG IV. So I ask you, if you do NOT care if the CF-spec every sees the light of day, or DON'T want the CF-spec, to voice your opinion now. I feel we need an architecture for RPG. We need many poorly designed features corrected, we need consistent designs and several new features before we effectively turn RPG IV into CL II. Let me know what you think. Bob Cozzi http://www.RPGIV.com +--- | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: email@example.com +---END
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.