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

Dave,

One of my points was that several features in RPG IV need fixing.
You've mentioned a few in your remarks. Thanks!

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com
>>[mailto:owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com]On
>>Behalf Of David Morris
>>Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:12 PM
>>To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
>>Subject: Re: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
>>
>>
>>Bob,
>>
>>First, if you don't vote, on what grounds can you
>>complain?  You have made
>>some assumptions which seem to be contradicted.  Who says
>>we can't have
>>both?  Based on the survey made (which I assume you are
>>referring to) $100
>>was required for free format RPGIV.  According to what I
>>have read, the
>>implementation of this feature took less time than
>>expected.  I don't remember
>>what I spent, but it was considerably less than the allotted $100.
>>
>>I want it all, CF specs are a nice to have and I will use
>>them if available.
>>I just hope they do what I need most, first.  If I had my
>>way, the Rochester
>>people and Toronto people would get together and write a
>>few mixed
>>language applications that passed parameters.  When they
>>were creating
>>their applications, I would have them address the
>>incompatibilities
>>between the calling conventions for each language.  When
>>these tasks
>>were done, I would have a party and declare that ILE
>>supported integrated
>>applications.
>>
>>After the party I would have the Rochester people get
>>operational descriptor
>>support to work so that I could write what I need today
>>followed by some of the
>>obviously needed CL  enhancements.  In the mean time I
>>would ask the
>>Toronto people to work on supporting variable type
>>parameters followed
>>by support for aliased file names and direct support for
>>dynamically sized
>>arrays.  Then I would have a party and declare that I had
>>everything I needed
>>to work effectively.
>>
>>David Morris
>>
>>>>> "Bob Cozzi" <cozzi@rpgiv.com> 07/29/99 09:18PM >>>
>>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
>>
>>http://www.RPGIV.com
>>
>>+---
>>| 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