× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: More on Call or Bound Call
  • From: "Scott Klement" <infosys@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 19 Aug 1999 13:05:19 -0500

Buzz Fenner <bfenner@jonesborocwl.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
> has now using RPG III.  However, I have to sell my boss on making a
>  move
> towards RPG IV, and he will be a hard sell coming from the "If it
>  ain't
> broke...," point of view.  Plus, I'm in a Catch 22 situation: How do
> learn without writing new code vs. the mind set of not changing the
>  status
> quo.  (I realize I'm flogging a dead horse here, and I'm getting awa
>  from
> the subject at hand).  So, I'm gathering ammunition and hopefully wi
> choose my battles wisely.

Here's, perhaps, another way of looking at the situation that'll
help you make your point to your boss:

It seems to me that if you don't (eventually) move on to RPG IV,
(or at least another language thats still evolving) then you're
stuck where you are forever.  Moving to RPG IV does not cost you
anything -- but if you decide to stick with RPG III, then this
decision is standing in the way of progress!

You won't be able to grow, improve, take advantage of technology if
you remain with a language thats no longer being enhanced!

The "if its not broke, don't fix it" argument doesn't really make
sense here.   Starting new development in RPG IV won't break the
RPG III programs :)   You can code in RPG IV exactly the same way
that you did in RPG III.   Then, just gradually learn the new features
of the language -- say one new feature per program that you write.



>
> Also, I take no offense with any criticism of my syntax.  After all,
>  if
> other people (with you guys being the experts) don't see what you do
>  it
> never gets critiqued!
>
> Buzz Fenner
> bfennerNS@jonesborocwl.org
> Remove NS to reply
> 

The problem with arguments about "syntax" or "style" is that even the
"experts" don't agree.  To some people, one way is "obviously" better,
to others another way is "much better"

Which one of these is difficult to understand:

     C     *IN06         IFEQ      *ON

     C                   if        *IN06 = *On

     C                   if        *IN06

     C   06              DO


Which one will we use?  Whichever one is trendy at the moment :)
It doesn't really matter.

+---
| 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
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.