Re: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"

["James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@xxxxxxx>]

Bob,

Noone ever asked me :-)

IMHO, the CF spec, while nice to have, it's absence has not deterred the 
creation
of effective solutions.

Will it make life easier?  Will it make RPG modern (whatever that means) or
sexier, more appealing to entry level programmers?
I just don't get that urge to jump up and shout hallelujah about it.

Having seen some real slop in CL, I kind of like having a language that forces a
programmer to line up their code.  I don't have any problem with one line, one
action.  Although FORTAN style parenthetical equations do have their place.

How's this for coercion, have the CF spec relegated to a procedure.  Like the 
CSR
spec indicated code within a subroutine.

I don't know if the CF spec would really turn RPG into CL II, but I understand
about your concerns for supporting multiple language "versions".  Provided that
ALL RPGIV features are available to V3R2 I'll still pick and choose what 
features
I want as a shop standard.

Some of the bif's have been nice, they replaced a call to a subroutine that did
the same thing, like return string length but they didn't make us want to
retrofit thousands of programs.  The same for the CF spec.  We aren't going to
change a working line of code just because CF exists.  New code, maybe we'll try
it out.

Now an RPGIV precompiler that could take a /COPY member with an E spec and
associated array contents and put it in it's proper place would save me some
-real- time.

You asked ;-)

Bob Cozzi wrote:

> Geeze!
>
> <<snip>>
>
> Let me know what you think.
>

+---
| 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: david@midrange.com
+---END