Re: Another one bites the dust

[cozzi@xxxxxxxxx]

Timing is everything. In fact, I'm talking about this very topic
in next weeks "midrange developer" newsletter.

Bob Cozzi

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Douglas Handy wrote:

>
> Joe,
>
> >I'm not sure what I was thinking.  Maybe it's
> >just that RPG was stable for so long, and now there's so much
> change.
>
> For (too many) years there weren't any changes, so there was no
> reason to PTF
> changes back...
>
> >Are you sure that changes to RPG IV aren't PTFed back?
>
> It has happened, but only rarely.  The only one I can list
> off-hand is the PTFs
> to add support for Options( *SrcStmt : *NoDebugIO ).  And then
> only the compiler
> changed -- SEU syntax checking was not changed so it continued
> to flag it as an
> error.
>
> There may be other examples, but they are the exception and not
> the norm.
> Consider too that some RPG features you think of as being
> compiled into
> executable code within your *PGM are really just calls to
> routines in the RPG
> runtime support.  The back level runtime would have to change
> for some things
> which you may not consider as being OS version dependent.
>
> But in the larger picture, why should the compiler team have to
> spend some of
> its limited budget on porting changes back to old releases?
I'd
> generally
> rather they spent the money on improving the language going
> forward.  I'll admit
> though I'm real glad they PTF'd the *SrcStmt thing back to
V3R2.
>  The *NoDebugIO
> is convienent, but the *SrcSmt is a near requirement...
>
> >On the minus side, that means that in order to support clients
> I have to
> >avoid the newer stuff,
>
> No news there.  Just like you have to avoid new OS features.
>
> >but you do that, too, so I suppose I should just quite my
> b*tchin'
>
> I now generally get to code to V5R1 level, but I did live with
> V3R2 specs for
> years.  But even that is still *vastly* superior to using RPG
> III.   The only
> halfway legitimate reason for not using RPG IV is having to
> maintain vendor
> supplied RPG III code.  But that begs the question why *they*
> haven't switched
> to RPG IV...
>
> IMHO,
>
> Doug
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <a
href="http://mail.rpgiv.com/jump/http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l";>http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/rpg400-l</a>
> or email: RPG400-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at <a
href="http://mail.rpgiv.com/jump/http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l";>http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l</a>.