|
> Comments in line... > > boldt@ca.ibm.com wrote: > > > <SNIP> > > I noticed you haven't mentioned PL/I. Interesting. PL/I has > > different rules yet again! It has it's own set of quirks regarding > > decimal arithmetic, yet many people still use it. > > You are right, I have never even seen PL/I. I have no idea what PL/I does. > > > <SNIP> > > > You do offer an interesting suggestion, though: Perhaps we should > > > have a "CURRENCY" attribute on decimal numeric variables, which > > would ensure that decimal precision never drops below the declared > > number of decimal digits within expressions. (Basic's 2 decimal > > place currency format seems a bit restrictive. Not all countries > > use 2 decimal places in their currency.) > > That would be nice, then I wouldn't have any problem at all using the Eval. > > > I'm like you - I wouldn't do computer programming if I didn't > > enjoy it and wasn't good at it. > > > > Sure, the title of that point was meant to be provocative. But I > > stand by it. In my humble opinion, too many programmers are too > > complacent about their craft. It is all too easy these days to > > pick up something new, have some early successes, and think you > > know all about it. > > When I program, my objective is to write a program without bugs that > does the objective given to me. And, so far, I have done it every time. > I always double check my answers on pencil to make sure they are > correct. I do not think I know everything about any language, I don't > think anyone does. But I know the things I use. > > When I first started programming and started getting into mathematical > formulas, I looked real closely at how math was done. I studied how > they were stored in the computer, I studied the overflow bit, I studied > 2's compliment, I studied multiplication, division, raising to the power of > et al. The reason I got so into it was because I was doing graphical > programming, and was writing my own 3d engine, and I had to know > how accurately I could depend on my answers. > > And when I pick up a new language and started using math I would > look and make sure they were doing it the same way, and they did. > > After 5 or 6 languages, I still usually check to make sure they are doing > it the same way. And so far I haven't run across any problems, not even > with the MULT statement in RPG. > > And, when I started using EVAL I did check the manual, as I quoted you, > as I check every command I haven't used before, with no indication of > any difference between how it worked and how the MULT works. I had > no reason to think it would be any different. As stated, it seems I have > the first version of the manual, which gave no indication of any change from > every other language I have programmed in, or RPG's own MULT statement. > > > You mentioned Perl in your own list of languages. Do you read > > comp.lang.perl.misc? I see many people post questions and > > very often the answer is "Did you use -w and use strict?" A > > beginner can quickly learn enough to write a Perl program, but > > it takes more understanding to appreciate the importance of > > things like "-w" and "use strict". It's that kind of > > necessary wisdom that's hard. > > As I have said, I know a "little bit" of Perl. I do not consider myself > proficient > in it. I have written small programs in it, but didn't understand enough of > what > I was doing to consider myself learned in that language. I did start a study > course in it, but never finished it (wound up with my Linux box bombing out > with a crashed motherboard about 3 years ago, and haven't gotten a new > box at home to install linux on. I did just buy 3 manuals on Linux, one on >the > operating system, one on programming in linux and on on C for linux). > > > <SNIP> > > Me, I started learning programming in 1976. And I'm still learning > > programming. I didn't stop learning when I quit school in 1980. > > I am always reading up on programming. At home I am reading a > box on Linux right now that I just started and is about 3" thick, I got > 3 of them to go though. That is not counting my 80836 Programmer's > Reference Manual I got from 1986 to learn more about Assembly and > how Intel CPUs work. > > > Then I take it you haven't yet learned object-oriented programming. > > > > Learning programming is much more than just learning the peculiarities > > of particular programming languages. Take OOP for instance. In my > > opinion, no-one schooled in procedural programming can really understand > > object-oriented programming without first feeling like a complete > > idiot. If you think you know OOP without going through that phase, you > > really don't know OOP. > > Of course I know OOP. I picked it up at the last company I worked at > where they used Delphi. They didn't use OOPs too much, but I started > looking at it, bought the compiler at home and read the manuals. Then > I wrote a few programs, logged onto Delphi news groups, downloaded > OPPs (Other People's Programs) and looked at them, etc... > > And then I looked at OOPs in C and VBasic and, know what? They > worked just about the same way. > > > The realization that one must pass through through that "complete > > idiot" phase is hard for many people to accept. We don't like > > feeling like idiots. Yet, IMHO, it's often necessary to shake off > > old prejudices and beliefs in order to learn and accept new things. > > Oh yes, I definitely felt like a complete idiot with OOPs, Pascal in > Delphi was no problem, but the OOPs had me scratching my head, > because I had never seen it before. I say if you don't learn something > new every day, it was a wasted day. > > > (On the other hand, IMHO, over time, the teaching of OOP will improve to > > make the process less painful. But then again, the need to teach new > > tricks to us old dogs will decrease as we retire and more and more new > > programmers learn OOP right from the start.) > > True. > > > But here's what I don't understand with this discussion: Learning a > > new set of arithmetic rules in a programming language really doesn't > > compare with learning a whole new way of approaching programming or > > a whole new operating system. Many RPG programmers have made the > > transition to RPG IV with little effort and few complaints. > > The only problem I had was there was no indication at all that it was a > "new set of arithmetic rules". > > > Here's where I really take offense at your assertions. You claim that > > we want RPG to be different for no good reason? You have no idea what > > went into the design for decimal arithmetic. The fact is, we looked > > at many different sets of rules, and for each, we found cases where the > > rules would cause possibly unexpected results. Unless we did the > > arithmetic with infinite precision and infinite speed, there was no way > > we could satisfy everyone. That's the reality of programming language > > design. > > Of course, but why did you try to reinvent the wheel and wind up making > it square instead of round? All the other programming languages way of > dealing with overflow is going to effect me very seldom. I know about it, > I know how it works, I keep it in the back of my mind as I write my formulas > and it just doesn't effect me. Maybe one out of 100 or 1000 times am I > going to have to change the way I am doing something because what I am > doing is going to overflow. > > RPG's way of doing it, on the other hand, has the potential of affecting me > quite a bit. Even though now I know about it, every time I write something > I am going to have to start counting decimal places and interger places on > my fingers and toes and then juggle around my equations so that the formulas > will come out right. > > I learned a long, long, long time ago to make my variables large enough to >hold > my answers or I would get an overflow, and make sure there are no intermediary > results that will go past my variables allotted space, which is perfectly >fine. > > That is not good enough for RPG, now, because now I am also going to have > to determine the precision, or make absolutely sure that I have the header >spec > specified (and even then, I am going to test the heck out of it to make sure >it > works 100% as advertised). > > > If you think you can design a programming language better, then please > > feel free to do so. > > Actually, I once bought a book on compiler design to do just that, but the > book was so full of gobblygook I couldn't' understand a word it was saying. > I don't know if the book was just written horribly or I don't know enough > higher mathematics to understand it. > > > <SNIP> > > Look, I've stated before that, sure, we could have made some better > > design choices. But we have a policy of trying to ensure that a > > working program compiled several years ago will work the same today > > when compiled on a newer release. We can't go back and arbitrarily > > change the rules, and our customers expect that. > > Okay, that I can agree with. You know, I wouldn't even of thought anything > of it if I didn't already know so many other programing languages that all > did things the same way. > > And I can respect this answer, Hans. This thread would of died a long, long > time ago if that was stated from the beginning instead of RTFM. "Okay, we > did not make the best design decision there, we've added the fact that you > have to be careful with math in LATER versions of the manual." > > This whole thread I think derived from the fact that the first version of the > manual said nothing about the math being any different than the MULT and > DIV statements. > > The fact is, it is now in later versions of the manual so people know about it > (and I'm talking about the RPG reference manual under the EVAL section, > not some section on math). I'm just wondering where the replacement page > for my manual is. Probably got lost in the mail <g> > > Regards, > > Jim Langston > > +--- > | 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 > +--- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Received: from ns.learningco.com ([198.112.0.7]) by mail.learningco.com with > SMTP > (IMA Internet Exchange 3.12) id 000262F8; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:10:27 -0400 > Received: by ns.learningco.com; id OAA19941; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:06:50 -0400 > (EDT) > Received: from kitten.mcs.com(192.160.127.90) by ns.learningco.com via smap > (V4.2) > id xma019816; Thu, 7 Oct 99 14:06:23 -0400 > Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (Uucp1.mcs.net [192.160.127.93]) by > Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id MAA04756; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:26:36 > -0500 (CDT) > Received: (from uucp@localhost) > by uucphost.mcs.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02700; > Thu, 7 Oct 1999 12:26:19 -0500 (CDT) > Received: (from majordom@localhost) > by midrange.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00839 > for rpg400-l-outgoing; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:19:28 -0500 > Received: (from uucp@localhost) > by midrange.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id LAA00132 > for RPG400-L@midrange.com; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:03:34 -0500 > Received: from internet-server.conexfreight.com ([207.113.62.33]) > by uucphost.mcs.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA23105 > for <RPG400-L@midrange.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:25:00 -0500 (CDT) > Received: from conexfreight.com ([207.113.62.33]) > by internet-server.conexfreight.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 > ID# 0-40010U100L2S100) with ESMTP id AAA96 > for <RPG400-L@midrange.com>; Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:15:17 -0700 > Message-ID: <37FCB904.FE8CE26C@conexfreight.com> > Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 08:15:17 -0700 > From: Jim Langston <jlangston@conexfreight.com> > Organization: Conex Global Logistics Services, Inc. > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) > X-Accept-Language: en > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: RPG400-L@midrange.com > Subject: Re: [Re: RPGILE V4.3 Gotcha] > References: <87256803.00489F5B.00@d53mta02h.boulder.ibm.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-rpg400-l@midrange.com > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: RPG400-L@midrange.com > X-List-Name: RPG/400 Discussion Mailing List (RPG400-L@midrange.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 +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.