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:firstname.lastname@example.org] 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: 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.