RE: Free Form RPG Opinions Wanted

There is an area that I consider to be much more dangerous than Mr. Paris'
sentiment is your statement of:

"If I am a shop that's running just ducky on RPG II style code, and I have
programmers who program that way, and we're making our numbers and beating
our competition and doing what we need to do, then how can you possibly
justify making us change our ways?"

I will tell you now, that with sentiments like those above, your corporate
management will begin to go around you to look for other ways to solve
complex business problems - and the solutions they come up with will not be
to your liking.  There are 100's of thousands of IT professionals out of
work today - simply because they thought that staying static in the approach
to business would keep them employed. 

Those that do not understand how to integrate IT solutions in a global
sense, and make full use of the tools provided for that solution, preach and
propose the brand new technology as a way out of the "old antiquated RPG
code".  These people are the ones being listened to in business today - to
the detriment of business and our professional lives.

We as professionals make every attempt to hone and improve our skill sets.
The only ones that prefer to not "change our ways" are those that have no
initiative and understanding of the products that they produce.  However,
the most dangerous aspect is how those that prefer to remain in the RPG II
world instead of progressing have hamstrung those of us that wish to grow
and improve not only ourselves but the companies we work for.

A true story:  A company spent millions of dollars designing, developing,
and testing a very flexible, powerful, and user friendly rules engine.  It
was designed around their business and would permit them to move rapidly to
changing business trends.  On the day of deployment - it crashed the
production system.  Everything ground to a halt.  10's of 1000's of people
were left stranded without an ability to effectively perform their jobs -
not just the ones that would eventually rely on the new product.

You might ask: What was this method used to create such a wonderful product
that so devastatingly impacted the business?  The answer is to complex to
respond here.  I know that the method used was done because it "appeared" to
be the best approach with the highest return on the investment.

What was lacking in the overall strategy behind the development and
deployment of the product was the examination and real-life consideration of
the RPG/ILE platform for use in the product.  It failed as a strategic tool
simply because of the statement you made.  Those individuals that failed to
examine the strengths of the platform and opt to pursue its use on its own
merits did so because they did not understand the strength, integration
capability, and that the hardware platform was tuned to make use of those
strengths in the first place.  If all the capability of the ILE environment
(and specifically the RPG/ILE environment) had been considered, it would
have been the platform of choice.

We are now reaping the benefits of those that wish to not "change our ways"
because, to truly use and make use of the full capabilities of the ILE
environment, requires a leap that simply cannot be made by most of those
that have learned the old ways of RPG development.

I am not advocating that all business solutions are easily solvable by
RPG/ILE alone - there are other products/languages that are better suited to
solving many of today's business challenges - Java, XML, etc.  But before
you decide on a single course of action - make sure you understand the
ramifications of "choosing" that action.

- Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 5:22 PM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Free Form RPG Opinions Wanted

> From: Jon Paris
>
> I think one can make the argument that in some ways the on-going upward
> compatibility that RPG has given us over the years has done more harm than
> good.  Too many people still code RPG II (they just use RPG IV syntax).  I
> think it is about time that there _were_ features that can only be used if
> you embrace their intent.

Jon, you know I have great respect for you, but this is possibly one of the
most dangerous sentiments I've ever heard.

If I am a shop that's running just ducky on RPG II style code, and I have
programmers who program that way, and we're making our numbers and beating
our competition and doing what we need to do, then how can you possibly
justify making us change our ways?  Just because you, Jon Paris, don't like
the MOVE instruction?  Now doesn't that strike you as a tad arrogant on your
part?  Do you plan to come in and teach my programmers the new syntax for
free?  Will you pay for the retesting that's required on applications that
have worked for years?

Jon, I'm disappointed with you.

No, I'm saying that as you add new things to the language, if it's just as
easy to make them available in RPG IV as it is in RPG FF, then please do so.
After some serious consideration, I'm really of the mind that the only thing
you get from RPG FF is indent/undent and a few extensions to the base
opcodes.  And it costs you semi-colons, loss of function on a number of BIFs
(for example, DIV and REM) and the loss of the MOVE instruction.  For
someone who hates MOVE (and doesn't care about anybody else) then this might
be a good thing.  But I just don't see the justification.

If the extended factor two were supported on RPG IV, then we'd have the best
of both worlds, and if you really, really needed indent/undent, you could do
it, while my example client above wouldn't be disallowed the use of the new
features.

I can't see how anybody who isn't thinking entirely self-centrically (and
just a little bit Elite Architect-ish) wouldn't think this is a good thing.


> Any op-code that requires you to know the exact data type and size of both
> fields before you know what the hell will happen is in my opinion a bad
> idea.

I'm not being flip here, but why should it matter what you think about the
MOVE opcode?  Isn't that assigning an awful lot of weight to your viewpoint?
Because I would counter that any programmer who doesn't understand every
opcode he uses and the side effects thereof is in my opinion a bad
programmer.

This isn't kid stuff, it isn't supposed to be easy, and if you can't take
the time to look at a compile listing, then you ought to be thinking about
alternate lines of employment.  This silly notion that every line of code
ought to be self-documenting is the single stinkiest pile of dung I've
smelled in a loooooooooong time.

If you write code that's even a little bit unusual, write a comment.  THAT'S
WHY LANGUAGES HAVE COMMENTS.  "But comments get out of date."  Not if you
fire the lazy, incompetent programmer that didn't update the comment when
they changed the code.

Self-documenting code is for the button pushers - the ones who want to point
their mouse at pretty icons on a screen and have it develop an ERP
application for them.  And you know, you may get it, on account of people
who are willing to have slightly less efficient code and slightly less
powerful compilers, in order to make their jobs "easier", so they don't have
to actually think about it.  They'll plug together bloated, stupid modules
and get mediocre results quickly, and after a while everyone will think that
that's what programming is.  And when it gets to that point, where
programming is semi-skilled labor, programming jobs will zoom out of this
country so fast you won't even hear 'em leave.

And I guarantee you will miss the MOVE instruction then.


> I may pose a few questions to the attendees at next weeks RPG World
> conference and see what they think.  So far I've presented the V5 stuff to
> about 2,000 plus people.  Very few have ever complained about the MOVE
> op-code and those that have once they think about it tend to go
> "yea! it is
> a bit sneaky isn't it - I got caught badly by that x weeks ago"

Jon, I've been involved in the development of hundreds of millions of lines
of code - you know that - over decades, and never, ever has one of my
projects been bitten by a MOVE.  The one we has last month with the negative
sign was truly the first time a MOVE opcode ever was "too sneaky" for me.
Honestly.  But then again, I have a policy of beating programmers who write
"cute code" with a stick.

Just remember, it isn't the MOVE that kills programs - it's the programmer
who uses the MOVE.

Okay, enough.  The horse is dead.  I have my viewpoint.  I am going to stump
for am extended factor 2 syntax and a %MOVE BIF.  I'll be amazed if I get
them, and disappointed if I don't, but at least I've come up with a
compromise - a compromise that helps some people, harms nobody, and yet the
"3l33t d00dz" of RPG don't want to hear.

<<sigh>>

Joe

_______________________________________________
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.