|
I guess I was asking the same questions as you are and I didn't believe anybody that OO was good until I started using Java. So I am unsure if I could convince you of the benefits of OO. I would recommend reading a book called Thinking In Java to get a jump start. Aaron Bartell -----Original Message----- From: Booth Martin [mailto:Booth@MartinVT.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:04 PM To: rpg400-l@midrange.com Subject: Re: Qualified sub-procedures -- -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] I am curious about something. OO is Nirvana of course, but why? What are the benefit(s) about OO that make it so superb? I ask the question because I wonder if we can do mock-OO with RPG's current capabilities, and gain the benefits? We don't truly care about the features of OO, only the benefits, right? --------------------------------------------------------- Booth Martin http://www.MartinVT.com Booth@MartinVT.com --------------------------------------------------------- -------Original Message------- From: rpg400-l@midrange.com Date: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 02:02:03 PM To: rpg400-l@midrange.com Subject: Re: Qualified sub-procedures Bartell, Aaron L. (TC) wrote: > My next question to you would be why are there multiple languages that can > do OO programming? Because somebody found a better way to do it. RPG could > be that language that takes the next step! Are you suggesting that an OO-RPG could be a "better way"? Sorry, I can't see that. Unless we copy outright an existing OO language. Why are there so many OO languages? Why are there some many types of motor vehicles? Because some are better suited to particular tasks than others. > > Why give RPG more functionality at all? Why not just have your whole shop > move to C# or Java since they have the stuff that we are looking for? See > where I am coming from? I'm not sure I see your point. I've always argued that you should use the appropriate tool for the task at hand. RPG is good at some things, such as implementing business logic. But, not so good at other things. (Others have argued that OO is not even suitable for business logic. I don't agree, but I'm not going to debate *that* point in this thread!) > > If I had the choice I probably would develop 90% of my new programs in Java > because of the flexibility, but the reality of it is that in our corporation > we have about 50 RPG programmers and very few Java programmers. Of those 50 > there are very few that even want to learn a OO language, but those same > ones will want to know what the latest RPG enhancements are and start using > them. This brings me back to my point of wanting RPG to go more in that > direction because that is what will allow me to use OO concepts more because > the RPG will adopt them more readily. Unfortunately, there's a big learning curve in learning OO, and even bigger if you want to learn it properly! Just having OO features in a language does no good if you can't use them properly. And there's a big learning curve in learning particular class libraries, which are an important aspect of good OO languages. In the time it would take to learn how to use an OO-RPG, you could learn Java, or any other OO language. I understand your point that many RPG programmers don't want anything to do with any language not called "RPG". Many RPG programmers also resist ILE! In many ways, there's no reason you can't implement OO-like designs today in RPG, if you understand OO. You could come up with some sort of OO framework in RPG. For example, you could have a framework where you allocate objects such that the object is prefixed in storage by a couple of pointers, including, say, a pointer to a class descriptor. You could define procedures that invoke methods on the objects, and the framework could search for the appropriate procedure based on the class hierarchy you set up. Implementing a storage manager with an effective garbage collector might be a bit tricky, and mixing RPG variables with objects might be a bit of a problem, but should be doable. (However, I see that as more of an academic exercise, and not really a practical one.) Even without a "OO-like" framework, OO philosophy can still guide a system design even in a procedural language. In that case, not every programmer in the team has to understand OO, just the system architect. Cheers! Hans -- [ Content of type image/gif deleted ] -- _______________________________________________ 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.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.