Re: Qualified sub-procedures

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hans,

At 10/2/02 09:37 AM, you wrote:
> Mark, I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think it's something
> a procedural programmer can *ease* into. You can study it all you
> want, but like Zen, sometimes you need an "Aha!" experience to
> understand it, or at least some aspect of it.
 I have dabbled w/ Java (and done some reading), so I have some clue about
OO concepts.  We've been discussing pseudo-OO programming via RPG IV
procedures.

 Changing or adding a language for most business shops is a *very*
expensive proposition and a large risk.  The ROI in most cases is just not
there.  You will probably lose some people w/ extensive knowledge of your
business.  For new technical hires you will have to find someone
experienced in both languages.

 Extending RPG has encouraged us to hone our programming skills.  While
modular programming has been encouraged more a long time, procedures have
made it easier to implement.  I believe that moving RPG forward toward
capability will make it a LOT easier to ease into OO.  JMHO.


> In practice, sensible design with flexibility and reuse in mind, even in
> procedural programming, is really what matters.
> In summary, personally, I think OO is good and worth studying. But
> it's not a panacea for all our programming problems.
 I agree.

 -mark