|
>> Before I go any further, I should explain that we use RPG modules extensively here and it has greatly simplified some complex stuff they do here. We could go into lengthy debates (and probably will) but in many ways the simplest and best answer is the one you actually provided!! Since the shop uses modules, you must be compiling with CRTRPGMOD - CRTRPGMOD is implicitly specifying DFTACTGRP(*NO). That is the simplest answer you can give him - everyone is already doing it! Note that DFTACTGRP(*NO) do _not_ mean that the program cannot run in the default AG (which is why it is a truly stupid name for the parameter) - it simply means "This program will not behave like an old RPG III program" - a better name for the parm would have been "Compatibility Mode" which is a true reflection of what it really means. Why subprocs not subroutines? Because one takes parms, returns values, isolates variables and can be read as English - and the other is a subroutine <grin> As to performance of subprocedures vs. subroutines, in practice it can be a wash. Because subprocs take parms, you don't have to move large blobs of data into the fields expected by the subroutine. That can more than compensate for the small overhead. Even if the overhead was huge I'd still want my programmers to justify why they _didn't_ use a subprocedure rather than the other way round. Jon Paris Partner400
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.