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

Go, go go!!

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eric N. Wilson [mailto:doulos1@home.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 9:41 PM
>>> To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
>>> Subject: Re: RPG IV and CF-spec "keep it IBM"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think the CF spec is the only way to keep RPG relative 
>>> for the future. I
>>> will not let a group of Neo-Ludites stop it. I have been 
>>> screaming for free
>>> format RPG since the S/38 came out. This is simply the MOST 
>>> important thing
>>> that can be done to improve the RPG language. Go Toronto Go!
>>> 
>>> ______________________________________________
>>> Eric N. Wilson
>>> President
>>> Doulos Software & Computer Services
>>> 2913 N Alder St
>>> Tacoma WA 98407
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Bob Cozzi <cozzi@rpgiv.com>
>>> To: <RPG400-L@midrange.com>
>>> Cc: one List <RPGIV@onelist.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 8:18 PM
>>> 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
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> 
+---
| 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