|
Dave, I know this a a dangerous topic <g> but I needed to get more fuel..... Bruce Vining pointed out the national language support issue, which is just now becoming a research project for one of our devo teams. As several others have stated, I'd put myself in the group that prefers o-specs "just because". But once I began looking at it as a "problem", I found that I cannot justify "just because" as a valid answer to why we should use o-specs. So far, the only advantage is outputting array elements, which seems pretty mild as arguments go..... :) RPG cycle issues are null and void. Cycle is used ONLY for batch maintenance programs, not reporting. RLU? Is this really an argument in favor of Prtf? I freely admit that it's been a few years since I looked at RLU, but I feel that the main reason most programmers avoided (past tense) PRTF in the first place was crappy old RLU. Is it better now? I know that Code Designer (and its successor when it's developed) are much easier to use, but I see less than ten percent of the developers here with any interest in the new tools. Thanks to all. Eric DeLong Sally Beauty Company MIS-Project Manager (BSG) 940-898-7863 or ext. 1863 -----Original Message----- From: Leland, David [mailto:dleland@Harter.com] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 2:55 PM To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com' Subject: RE: Standards issue - Comments please. This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. -- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] One thing that you don't mention in the "pros and cons" is the speed issue. Back on v3r7 and prior, PRTF's added a significant amount to the runtime of the RPG program. Don't know if that is still the case or not, but it's something you should consider. Dave p.s. You do realize you're starting up a discussion similar to the "cycle/no-cyle", don't you. The archives should have quite a bit on this subject already. -----Original Message----- From: DeLong, Eric [mailto:EDeLong@Sallybeauty.com] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:40 PM To: 'rpg400-l@midrange.com' Subject: Standards issue - Comments please. We will be having a review of shop standards soon, and I've been asked to assemble a "pros and cons" list for the O-spec -vs- Prtf topic. Our current standard recommends O-spec, but exceptions come up occasionally. The arguments boil down to the following: (The group that favors O-spec) "O-specs are simpler to code and easier to maintain" "Report programs are self contained" "Fewer members to check out" (Now the PRTF group) "PRTF is simpler to code and easier to maintain" "Separation of presentation attributes from report logic makes report layout changes easier" "PRTF can support advanced features such as barcoding, font control, embedded images/graphics, etc." Obviously, some (most?) of this is just a matter of personal preference, as the "simpler and easier" is whichever they've used most. Otherwise, the argument falls to capability, which PRTF wins without fail. Some feel that being self-contained (O-spec in RPG) is an advantage during debug situations, but again, I'm not sure that this is a real advantage. I'm having a hard time imagining other advantages or disadvantages, so if you have opinions, feel free to tell me. tia, Eric DeLong Sally Beauty Company MIS-Project Manager (BSG) 940-898-7863 or ext. 1863 _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
midrange.com
