Re: Qualified procedure names

["John Taylor" <jtaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aaron,

> He he...  I am the one that started that thread last year.  I am just a
> little stinker aren't I:-)

You do like to stir up trouble, I've noticed. :)

> RPG is GREAT!  But to keep up with the hype of Java and everything else it
> is going to have to change a lot faster.  We can call a java program from
an
> RPG program, great, but why not give RPG the finer points of java so I
don't
> even have to bother?

No offense to the developers --because I don't consider it their fault-- but
calling Java from RPG is anything but great. It's kludgy, slow, and of very
limited usefulness. I wonder how much of the $100 budget that little feature
consumed. :)


> <soapy box>
> The people that still develop in RPG III can stay there because they
> obviously like to maintain their code that way and don't like to learn new
> things.  But when I hear IBM say that is why they don't modify RPG faster
I
> just want to throw my hands in the air and forget about RPG catching up
> anytime soon.  I may be asking too much because I know that RPG is thought
> of as a business language, but I think that is hindering its capabilities
> for future expansion.  Why shouldn't RPG be able to write a MP3 player app
> (reaching a little far but you get my point).
> </soapy box>

I'm more than a little hesitant to make comparisons to OO languages, or use
examples that don't represent common usage, because that just tends to bring
out the "if you want to use language X, then use language X..." argument.
What I'm asking for is the ability to write code which is more modular and
reusable. I don't think that goal should be at odds with the future of RPG
development.


John Taylor