Re: /FREE RPG compiler errors

["Peter Dow" <maillist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joe,

I believe Gary's point was that it's readable, but to determine what a MOVE
opcode actually doing, you have to know the definitions of Factor 2 and the
Result field, but with the /free method it becomes apparent just by looking
at the EVAL statement.

Also, you talk about removing the MOVE opcode.  If you mean it's been
removed from RPG IV, that is not the case.  If you mean it's been removed
from the /free syntax, it was never in it.  If you mean IBM plans to remove
it from the language, I doubt it.

And no, I don't believe I _did_ say you should learn other syntaxes, so I
assume you're using the general "you". I'm sure you'll learn it if you have
to if you haven't already -- it's obviously not that difficult (there are
only 2 pages on it in the V5R1 RPG Reference manual). The interesting thing
will be the new programmers who come in knowing RPG IV and having to learn
the old (RPG II, RPG III) syntax in order to do maintenance.  Unless they're
allowed to convert it to RPG IV, /free or /end-free.

Regards,
Peter Dow
Dow Software Services, Inc.
909 793-9050 voice
909 522-3214 cellular
909 793-4480 fax

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: /FREE RPG compiler errors


> Peter, I've made my views on MOVE known at great length in this list.
> Please check through the history.  Rather than rehash that subject, let me
> just say that MOVE is absolutely readable to all RPG programmers, and
> removing it because non-RPG programmers don't understand it is asking to
> removing F-specs, or removing data areas from OS/400 because Unix doesn't
> have them.  DUH.

> I shouldn't have to rewrite it!  It's ALREADY IN THE LANGUAGE!  If I have
> 1,000,000 lines of code, I bet 50,000 of them are MOVE instruction.  Why
> should I have to rewrite those because some non-RPG programmer can't learn
> it?  You tell me I should learn other syntaxes, yet at the same time you
say
> that I should lose my syntax because other people don't understand it.