RE: question on survey question

[Scott Mildenberger <Smildenber@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Rob, I think the current model works fine.  I don't want to
limit what changes are made to the compilers because of the need to support
previous releases.

Scott Mildenberger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rob@dekko.com [mailto:rob@dekko.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:45 AM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: question on survey question
>
>
>
> No.  I'd rather they spend their money on giving us more
> functions in RPG
> versus supporting obsolete releases.
>
> Rob Berendt
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
>                     "Bob Cozzi
>                     \(RPGIV\)"              To:
> <rpgiv@yahoogroups.com>, <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
>                     <cozzi@rpgiv.com>       cc:
>                     Sent by:                Fax to:
>                     rpg400-l-admin@mi       Subject:
> question on survey question
>                     drange.com
>
>
>                     02/19/2002 10:28
>                     AM
>                     Please respond to
>                     rpg400-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In next week's Midrange Developer, my 10-second survey is going to be
> something like this:
>
> Should IBM be required to base all future versions of the compilers on
> V5R1, thus allowing future code to be compiled as TGTRLS(*V5R1M0)?
>
>
> My question to you all is this:
> Is this a viable question, and is it clear enough?
>
> My thinking is that this will change the way IBM does things,
> so that if
> they add a built-in function in V5R2, you and I who are still on V5R1
> can use that built-in function for our V5R1 applications.
>
> Today, if you want to compile to *PRV you have to have actually
> installed the V4R5 compiler on your V5R1 machine. I'd like to see IBM
> move away from that model, and instead, create enhancements to the
> existing compiler but require that enhanced compiler to run
> on the base
> Version release. Meaning for the entire life of V5 the V5R1 compiler
> would both compile and be able to target V5R1. Even if there
> were a V5R7
> the identical "binaries" would be installed on V5R7 and V5R1 and
> everything in between.
>
> So basically this means that the compile would allow you to
> produce code
> that runs on V5R7 or V5R1 and the only time a source member would not
> compile is if there were an operating system-dependant feature used in
> your code. Such as a new data type that may be in the database and in
> RPG but not back-release compatible. Otherwise, if they add a
> new opcode
> or a new built-in function it would work on V5R1 and later.
>
> Comments
>