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

[boldt@xxxxxxxxxx]

Jon wrote:
> >> What happened to my $100?
>
>As I understand it when they came to review the estimates prior to making the
>final cuts, they found that it wasn't anywhere near the $100 figure.  It was
>also, I think, number 2 or 3 on the list _even_with_ the $100 price tag, so
>there's lots of other stuff in the release.

Free-form calcs scared away a lot of people with it's $100
price tag and only received about 2-3 votes.  It wasn't
number 2 or 3 on the total count.  But as I pointed out,
once we had a more accurate cost estimate (roughly around
$20), we made the assumption that if we had listed a more
realistic cost, many more people would have voted for it.
And the response from this mailing list suggests that that
assumption was correct.

Bob chose an interesting time to post his original note in
this thread.  I wonder if he knew that by the time we in
Toronto received it, most of us would have already left to
enjoy a four day long weekend?

Anyways, it's still good to read comments from those who
aren't completely pleased with what we're doing.  We knew
there were more people, besides Bob, who couldn't care
less about some of the things we're doing.  But then, you
can't please everyone.

I'll try to respond to a couple of different threads of
this discussion here:

A couple of people debated whether or not RPG IV should
perhaps have broken compatibility with RPG III and both
sides made good points.  RPG IV with CF-Specs will still
be totally compatible.  However, making best use of the
CF-Spec will require some re-engineering since many of
the traditional fixed-form op-codes will not be supported.
The CF-Spec will most likely be used for new code.
Converting existing code will be practical mainly if you
already take advantage of features available since V4R2,
such as the Extended-Factor-2 opcodes and the indicator
BIFs.

Regarding Bob's complaint list: I don't have a copy handy,
but I believe it includes a couple of items which won't
change (unless we introduced an RPG V).  I think most of
us dislike certain aspects of RPG syntax, such as the
colon operand separator, but allowing alternative syntaxes
would only make the language more unwieldy.  (I'll wait
until Bob posts his list here before commenting on other
items.)

Finally, last week, someone asked if our new stuff will
appear in the rumored V4R5.  I won't comment on the rumors,
but don't be surprised if you see us continuing our pattern
of skipping every other release.  In other words, don't
hold your breath.

Cheers!  Hans

Hans Boldt, ILE RPG Development, IBM Toronto Lab, boldt@ca.ibm.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