• Subject: RE: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
  • From: Chris Bipes <ChrisB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:26:18 -0700

Well Bob I am in favor of not moving to "CF" specs.  What I like the most
about RPG over other languages is the fixed format.  Now I do love the free
form part of the EVAL for more complex math calcs and nested IF's, When's,
...  I feel that the fixed format and rigid structure helps to make the
programs more readable.  Now RPGII was difficult to code and read with all
those indicators and cryptic variable names.  I really like RPGIV.  RPG has
come a long way in the last few years but lets not turn it into another
COBOL or worse yet, "C".  I am in favor of keeping the fixed format and
rigid structure.  I would like to see more %biffs for higher level math
functions that can be found in FORTRAN.  (Perhaps they are now available.  I
am stuck on V3R7 just a little behind the times.)  If you want to see your
source indented for loops, ifs, selects, etc. there are ways to get that
with reports, compile listings and perhaps other interactive editors out
there now or in the future.

Christopher K. Bipes            mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com
Sr. Programmer/Analyst          mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com
CrossCheck, Inc.                http://www.cross-check.com
6119 State Farm Drive           Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102
Rohnert Park  CA  94928         Fax: 707 586-1884




-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cozzi [mailto:cozzi@rpgiv.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 8:18 PM
To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
Cc: one List
Subject: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"


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
+---
| 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



This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

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].