RE: Strange behavior w/%editc() -- RPG400-L

> From: boldt@ca.ibm.com
>
> Joe wrote:
> >...
> >I can only imagine that the decision was made by some
> >"compiler experts" who have never worked a single day in an application
> >development environment.  More than likely, it's a group of computer
> science
> >academicians who have never programmed a business algorithm in their
> lives.
>
> Which would you prefer?  Would you rather have your RPG IV
> compiler developed by application programmers?  Or by
> compiler experts?

I thought I'd get a response from this.  To be honest, if I had to choose,
I'd rather my business languages were designed by people with business
application experience than someone with no business experience.  I'm from
SSA.  We had a language developed by compiler experts.  It was called
AS/SET.  While it was great for generating code, it was useless for
developing business applications.

In the best of all worlds, I'd have my syntax designed by applications
development experts and my compiler written by compiler experts.  Rarely is
one person good at both.  Even a very good Java designer can create some
really horrible business applications, simply because they don't have a clue
what a business application needs to do.

And RPG is a business language.  Unlike C, C++ or Java, which can afford to
ignore the complexities of application development, RPG has to be tuned
ENTIRELY to the job of writing applications, and more importantly, to
maintaining those applications.  Anything that reduces the ability for
programmers to maintain their existing applications is a decision that AT
THE VERY LEAST requires a whole lot of justification.

To take a language and remove functionality is questionable.  To do it
without good reason is absurd.  To do it because you think you know better
without having actually used the language for what it is intended is
criminal.


> >Turning RPG into Java is a stupid idea.
>
> I agree 100%.  Java and RPG IV are still on different
> continents, functionality-wise, and there are no plans to
> turn RPG into Java.  If you think RPG is moving in that
> direction, you have no idea what Java is all about.

I suspect you know very little of what I know or don't know about Java,
Hans.  Perhaps you've read some of my articles, or attended some of my
classes on the subject.  Since I have little knowledge of your Java
capabilities, I can't comment on them, but I have a commercial Java-based
business application on the market.  That's more than most Java programmers
can say.

But in any event, it's not my Java skills being discussed here.  It's my
opinion that removing the MOVE opcode is a misguided concept.  I've yet to
hear one good reason for it's loss.  On the other hand, I can say that
replacing the MOVE opcode with some C-syntax BIFs is definitely a backwards
direction, and I have a feeling many other programmers would agree.  RPG
isn't about "cool and geeky", it's about getting a job done in a limited
time frame with a limited budget.  RPG is the best language in the world for
that, and a large part of that capability is the lowly MOVE instruction.
But hey, I've been wrong before.  And I could live with it if one of the
decision makers could actually tell us lowly programmers why they did it.


> Then I'd like to see why
> >
> >     eval b = %editc(%dec(a:%len(b):0):'X')
> >
> >is better than
> >
> >     MOVE A B
> >
> >Really.  Convince me.
>
> No.

But of course, we don't get an answer.  We get this "Pay no attention to the
man behind the curtain" crap.  I mean, is this "No, it's not better" or "No,
I don't have a good reason to remove the opcode" or "No, I'm not going to
tell you why because I know better"?

Well, no matter how impressed you are with your own brilliance, when it
becomes obvious that programs won't convert to the new and improved syntax,
don't be particularly surprised when there's some mean backlash from the
existing programming base.

Joe