Re: RPG400-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 38

[Doc <Doc6502@xxxxxxxxx>]

DeLong, Eric wrote:
> Doc,
>
> OK, not sure I agree with your assessment of where linker information should
> be kept, but that's a small point and I'll not argue....
Well, it's not a small point-- but it's not down to me to be arbiter 
elegantum.  You have something that works, everyone else can use it, and 
agrees to it.  Sounds good to me.

> Service programs.
Great, ain't they?

> That to me is the most direct and logical approach to ILE development, as it
> separates the programmer (somewhat) from the teduim of mass rebuild.  Throw
> in a little Binder source, and you can modify underlying code without
> requiring mass recompiles (unless your prototypes change, which hopefully is
> not happening too often).
No arguement there.

>  I freely admit my lack of experience in "unstable
> environments" as you describe, so I may just not understand what you're
> saying. However, I still can't see how TMKMAKE makes things better, only how
> it makes it more "Unix-like".  Perhaps that's an advantage to some, but not
> for me.  Sorry if I'm just being dense......
I know it'll be heresey for me to say this, but "UNIX-Like" doesn't 
always equal "bad".  There are a lot of good things that I've grown to 
appreciate on Unix systems over the course of the last 10 years since 
I've been working with them.  One of them is the concept of a .lib 
file... which is analgous to a service program, which we both agree are 
good things (in a very non-Martha Stewart like way).

The hardest part of using make is actually learning how the stupid make 
scripts work.  Nightmare.  Bad ones are nearly as arcane as RPG code 
riddled with left-hand indicators, CABxx, and ITER...LEAVE blocks <grin>.

The point is, that TMKMAKE is an often-overlooked tool that can do 
wonders for a big-scale project that has rapid development turnover.

-Doc