Re: Request for CL, DDS, SQL RPG enhancements

Hello Jeff,

You wrote:
>If the answer to every CL enhancement request is 'use REXX', why are we
>being asked in the first place?

I'm simply pointing out that there are alternatives available on your
existing system that satisfy the requirements.  We've had Rexx on the
AS/400 for 10 years.  In that time CL has had only two programming
enhancements:

        1/ %BINARY for hadling 2-byte and 4-byte integers
        2/ ILE CL

(and Rexx has had none -- because few of you want to use it and most of
you wouldn't know it existed)

While there are some areas where CL is better than Rexx, there are many
more where Rexx is better than CL.  It is another tool that you should
all be familiar with.  While I would appreciate some CL enhancements,
specifically:

        1/ Remove the ridiculous restriction of not being able to
reprocess a file that has reached EOF (CPF0864).  I should be able to
reposition using POSDBF and re-read the file, or close it, open it, and
reprocess it, after EOF has occurred.

        2/ Allow multiple file declarations so I can use a DSPF and a DB
file in the same program. (Al Barsa raised an objection regarding this
because he felt it would break existing code. That's crap!  If it is done
properly it will be transparent to the program.  Here is one suggested
approach -- are you listening Rochester?

        Add a new parameter to the RCVF, SNDF, and SDNRCVF commands
called FILE with a default value of *ONLY.  This allows existing CL
programs to function as expected.  The CL compiler will complain if
FILE(*ONLY) is used when there is more than one DCLF statement in the
source.  New code using multiple files is written like:

        DCLF    FILE(DBFILE)
        DCLF    FILE(DSPFILE)

LOOP:
        RCVF    FILE(DBFILE)
        MONMSG  MSGID(CPF0864) EXEC(send no more data message)
        SNDRCVF FILE(DSPFILE)
        /* Process user input */

        GOTO LOOP
EOF:

        New code using a single file can be written in the same manmer as
we currently do:

        DCLF    FILE(DBFILE)

LOOP:   RCVF
        MONMSG CPF0864 EXEC(GOTO EOF)
        /* Process record */
        GOTO LOOP
EOF:

        Not difficult conceptually.  Not difficult to implement.  Won't
break existing code.

        3/ Decent control constructs (UNTIL, WHILE, FOR)

        UNTIL COND() EXEC(DO)
          /* Do stuff */
        ENDDO

        WHILE COND() EXEC(DO)
          /* Do stuff */
        ENDDO

        FOR FROM() TO() BY() EXEC(DO)
          /* Do stuff */
        ENDDO

        4/ Allow binary values on the VALUE keyword of DCL so I can use
locality of reference to keep the RCVVARLEN size synchronised with the
RCVVAR size.  For example:

        DCL     VAR(&RCVVAR) TYPE(*CHAR) LEN(76)
        DCL     VAR(&RCVVARLEN) TYPE(*CHAR) LEN(4) VALUE(%BIN(76))

HOWEVER, I would forgo most of the above enhancements in exchange for
decent file I/O in Rexx and a Rexx compiler.

>That's like saying "What do you want in future RPG enhancements?" and
>for every suggestion made the response is 'use C'.

No it's not!  For one thing C is a much harder language to learn and
program in than RPG (in fact C is harder than any language except
Assembly).  Rexx is no harder than CL and in many ways easier.

However there are similarities.  There a number of requests for RPG
enhancements (dynamic arrays and MODS, binary search, etc) that can be
easily satisfied using C or the C APIs.

I do not want Toronto wasting time and money implementing things in RPG
that can already be done with a little effort on the part of a
programmer.  I'd rather they expended effort on engineering improvements.

As a programmer you should be familiar with many tools (i.e., languages).
Restricting yourself to CL and RPG is like a carpenter restricted to
using a hammer and a saw.  While there are many tasks for which those are
the only tools needed, there are many more that cannot be accomplished
without a good set of chisels and a drill, and still others for which
specialised tools are needed.

The trouble is that most AS/400 programmers are not "Programmers" per se,
they are merely "RPG Programmers".  They panic when faced with something
new, they don't know any other programming languages and aren't
interested in learning them on their own time to improve their general
programming knowledge, nor do they have a decent programming library
(I'll bet less than 5% have even heard of Donald Knuth, Larry
Constantine, Rebecca Wirfs-Brock, Richard Gabriel, Kent Beck, Jon
Bentley, P J Plauger, Erich Gamma, etc. never mind read any of their
books and applied them to RPG).

Regards,
Simon Coulter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists
   http://www.flybynight.com.au/

   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175   mailto: shc@flybynight.com.au   \ /
                                                             X
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------