RE: MOVE opcode in freeform (was Strange behavior w/%editc)

> From: Bob Cozzi (RPGIV)
>
> >>
> 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.
> <<
>
> I agree with this, but what did Hans & Co take away from RPG? Because
> the MOVE opcode isn't directly supported as a free-format opcode,
> they've taken it away.

But now in order to implement freeform, you have to slap in /free and
/end-free (actually /end-free and /free, to be pedantic) whenever you want
to use the old MOVE opcodes.  That's a bit tedious.


> But to be honest, I have yet to see one example of free-format RPG IV
> code posted to this list that has been written in a way that is similar
> to code written by people that write applications with free-format
> languages for a living (not as a hobby).

Agreed.  Most people use freeform as a sort of "BASIC-like" extension to the
RPG syntax, although the folks who combine Java with RPG are starting to do
some very cool things.

And Hans, please understand that I appreciate that particular magic to be
both cool AND useful!  Kind of like the Java toolbox, I think that most
people underestimate exactly how much work it takes to do that sort of thing
properly.


> /free
>    movel  src  target
> /end-free

This perhaps is the crtux of my argument.  Thank you for saying it so
succinctly.


> Actually, Joe, Hans is not your enemy.

I know that.  Hence my apology in my previous post.


> The enemy is us as a group, we
> RPG programmers who do not clearly articulate our views.

I'm willing to grant you that, as long as there is an implied agreement that
my original code will still work.  My fear with the move to freeform is that
in some release up the road there will be a freeform-ONLY compiler, and then
maybe the old fixed-format compiler becomes an additionally priced option.
Think it can't happen?  Remember WebSphere?  I'm sorry, but I've lost a
little trust that the folks that make decisions at IBM are as focused on
backwards compatibility as they used to be.  And so when I see an opcode
that makes up 30% or more of a typical application get replaced by a call to
a nested BIF as the "preferred method", with no explanation, I begin to get
a bit scared.


> I think rather
> than say "I demand feature X in RPG" we need to say something like:
> "Feature X is valuable to me because A, B, C, D... and this is how I
> think it should be implemented."

I agree.  Make a freeform move operation.  Because it's easier than a nested
BIF for all the reasons I've pointed out.


> Fortunately, the best choice (in my
> view) one out; we have EVALR instead of the other option.

Maybe they'll relent on MOVE.  I doubt it, but occasionally ya just gotta
tilt at those windmills...

Joe