back to: improving rpg. was: what is object oriented programming

["Steve Richter" <srichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Hans Boldt
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:02 AM

>> Procs could be declared as members of a data struct.  A data struct could
>> possibly
>> be declared with an "Is a" attribute which would be the equivalent of
base
>> classes in C++.  Maybe there could be "property get" and "property set"
>> members of a data struct.  Not knowing the secrets of ILE, even object
>> access operators ( struct1 >> CustMast // write a rcd to the file ) could
>> possible.

>Regarding adding "OO features" to RPG, well, I certainly think about
>that myself sometimes. But the scenarios always end up more or less
>the same - an ugly mish-mash of complex features, the type of
>language Rube Goldberg would be proud of. Or features with
>unacceptably poor performance. In other words, they'd end up making
>the language more difficult to use, not easier.

So now what I am talking about is "OO"!  First I am off topic, then I dont
know what I am talking about, then its not OO, now it is "OO", ...

Did /free make the language more difficult to use?  Did "qualified" and
"likeds" degrade performance, make an ugly mismash?  Of course it didnt!

By the same logic, why would the extension of /free to the data declare
specs not improve the language even more???

How is  "DataStruct.MemberProc( ... )" a rube goldberg construct?

If RPG is open sourced, IBM still makes its $$ thru the required websphere,
those who want IBM RPG can keep it, there is no need for an IBM run
committee, and the marketplace will decide quite efficiently whether a more
modular rpg is workable or not.

-Steve