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

But Bob, you've declared that you will not use free form.  So, why should
they try to please you?  Would addition of a move be the one thing to have
you 'see the light'?  As it has been discussed earlier, when we submit a
design change request we need to have a business reason for the change.
And it's hard to come up with a business reason for a free format move when
you have no intention of ever using it.

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:     <rpg400-l@midrange.com>
                    <cozzi@rpgiv.com>       cc:
                    Sent by:                Fax to:
                    rpg400-l-admin@mi       Subject:     RE: MOVE opcode in 
freeform (was Strange behavior w/%editc)
                    drange.com


                    02/27/2002 09:48
                    AM
                    Please respond to
                    rpg400-l






Joe, I think we're in agreement. :)

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 Joe Pluta
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:00 PM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.


_______________________________________________
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.