× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
  • From: Dave Mahadevan <mahadevan@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:23:35 -0400
  • Organization: Stoner and Associates

What I really want is all those extra stuff on V4R4 ptf'ed all the way back to
V3R2.   I know,  I know V3R2 support stops in 2K and all of you have repeatedly
told me V3R2 is dead.   But people are not going to stop using V3R2 for a few
more years.  IBM learned their lesson in SSP 5.1 and then belatedly did the
VASP.   This way developers can develop consistently instead of worrying about
version differences.

And fix that #$%^*! CL to handle structured ops, better file handling etc.

Bob Cozzi wrote:

> 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.

--
Thank You.

Regards

Dave Mahadevan.. mailto:mahadevan@fuse.net


+---
| 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



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.