• Subject: RE: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM" (higher math side track)
  • From: Joel Fritz <JFritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:48:41 -0700

RPGIV has a back door to higher math functions, two in fact.  Check out the
ILE math APIs and the C function library.  It's probably not as rich a
selection as you can get in FORTRAN, but with relatively little effort you
can bind them into your programs.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Bipes [mailto:ChrisB@cross-check.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 8:26 AM
> To: 'RPG400-L@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
> 
> 
*************  Big Snip  ******************************

> I would like to see more %biffs for higher 
> level math
> functions that can be found in FORTRAN.  (Perhaps they are 
> now available.  
> 
> 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 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 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].