RE: question on survey question -- RPG400-L

Again, I only need comments on the question's wording, not on the topic
(not yet anyway). Besides, you don't know that changing the methodology
stifles anything.

Bob Cozzi
cozzi@rpgiv.com
Visit the on-line  Midrange  Developer  forum at: http://www.rpgiv.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:rpg400-l-admin@midrange.com]
On
> Behalf Of Scott Mildenberger
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 9:55 AM
> To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: question on survey question
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l
> or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.