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

I'm always interested in making RPG be a better language. All areas need
to be improved, not just those that I use. And you're right, I have yet
to use a single line of /FREE stuff in my code, (experimental or
otherwise). The only /FREE stuff I've written has been in email clients
sending messages to this group. Why? Because the syntax isn't good
enough for me to use it yet.

What would they have to do to fix that?

Get rid of the /FREE - /End-FREE requirement. A blank in column 6 should
indicate a non-traditional calc spec.

Remove the semi colon requirement from the end of conditional statements
IF/ELSE/ENDIF/DO etc.

Add a "Move corresponding" operation code to the language (<g> just a
COBOL pun).

Include the MOVE and MOVEL operation codes as they work today. There is
not technical reason that I've heard, as to why MOVE and MOVEL were left
out. I use EVAL mostly today in my traditional-syntax RPG IV. But I
don't want to nest %subst() and other built-in functions just to make an
EVAL simulate what a MOVEL does.
Take a look at this example from CodeStudio's "Modernize" feature:

Original Code:

     C                   MOVEL     src           target

Modernized Code:

     C                   Eval      %SUBST(target:1:%len(src)) = src

Is that more clear? Well, it might be to a non-RPG programmer. But so
what? Let those who worry about non-RPG programmers maintaining their
code, use EVAL. Let use RPG programmers use MOVE/MOVEL.

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 rob@dekko.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:59 AM
> To: rpg400-l@midrange.com
> Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.