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

Carol Bastien <cabastien@home.com> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> I found your dissertation quite interesting and I agree with a lot o
>  what you
> say.  I am wondering though, just how long you've been in the
>  programming
> arena.   You said that IBM changed the terminology.  That is simply
>  not true.
> IBM invented most of the terminology.

I guess I was specifically thinking of the terminology for
modules (vs. object files), binding (vs. linking), etc.  These
are concepts that have been in use on other systems (primarily
PC and unix systems) for far longer than they've been on the
AS/400.

>
> I'm finding it more and more difficult to be patient with recent
>  computer
> graduates who think they invented the world.  Instead of getting a
>  solid
> background in the history of computing and programmer languages to
>  develope a
> solid foundation with a real prespective, they jump into the latest
>  and greatest
> (or just the hottest) new language while in school and learn 'Only'
>  that.  They
> then rename ideas and concepts that have been around for eons,
>  unbeknownst to
> them, and believe they invented them.  Just because you didn't know
>  was there,
> doesn't mean it didn't exist!

I've been programming since 1981, where I started on a System/34.
I've also worked on the System/36, and AS/400, as well as the
Apple II series, TI-99/4a, Commodore 64, VAX (only briefly), Unix
(FreeBSD), DOS, Windows (3.1, 95 and NT).  I've worked in 17 diff
languages that pop into my head as I'm writing this.

I'm sorry if my opinion differing from yours means that I dont
have a "solid foundation with a real perspective".  But I think
I have adequate experience to air my views without being insulted
as a result of it.

> I have learned to say column instead of field, row instead of record
>  and table
> instead of file.  It doesn't make any difference to me because I kno
>  they are
> the same thing.  The reason I use the 'new' names is so our younger
>  coworkers
> will understand . . . .  I'm all for your enthusiasm and as I said,
>  do agree
> with most of what you said, but have a care and a little more respec
>  for
> history.  Us "Legacy Programmers" are watching.

Sorry, I was not commenting on "record/field/file" vs "col/row/table"
in that instance, I prefer the former.   In that respect, I think
the people who created SQL should've used existing terminology, just
as I feel that IBM should've used existing terminology when they had
that opportunity.

I never had a hard time adapting to the new terms either (as everyone
who read my message seems to think that I did) but I train new people
and I watch them get confused by the multitude of new terms that they
have to learn and understand!  It would make my life easier if every
platform was consistent.   Since the focus of my message was to
explain what I thought was the reason that IT managers don't upgrade
to RPG IV (ILE RPG/400, if you prefer) I thought that the issue of
training people was fairly relevant.

And (based on the message that I'm responding to, and the things you
said in it) I'd also expect you to understand why this is an issue,
even if you don't agree -- rather than criticize me.

+---
| 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