Re: RPG400-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 804 -- RPG400-L

JT wrote

>Knowing "KISS" being different than applying KISS (and I don't believe that
>is jmo).

(Sorry, JT, but I'm using your statement here as a jumping-off point.  I ain't
picking on you.)

I gotta beg to differ.  I've found that the application of KISS will not make
anything easier for anyone if the underlying codebase, and the designs therein,
are poorly founded or out of date.  And it is at this point ILE RPG beats the
pants off OPM RPG because its structure (particularly if you use /Free) lends
itself to better design.  And in this case, I define "better" as:

--The ability to reuse proven business-based code easily and quickly, with the
ability to incorporate flexibility through the intergration of multiple
languages, and version support.

The KISS arguement is the sort of attitude I've had to argue against for the
past six years, which is as long as I've been coding in ILE RPG.  In that time,
I have found that there ain't a trick in OPM that can't be done better in ILE. 
But there's a caviat:

ILE is like Tinkerbell or trickle-down economics:  If you don't believe in it,
it won't work.  :)

It's been my experience that a half-heared attempt at ILE just makes things
worse.  I've worked in several shops that have simply rolled code from OPM into
ILE, and it was like putting lipstick on a pig.  Yes, there was be some benefit
from the overall runtime improvements IBM has invested into ILE rather than
OPM, but they still had the same stinky codebase.

I have always advocated that a change to ILE needs to be made a business
priority because it solves a business problems.  Without the commitment, there
are the usual excuses:  "We have standards", "Our programmers will hate the new
code, and they'll quit", "We can't afford to make these changes because the
(project, education, time away from 'productive work') costs money," then you
end up with stagnant code that will eventually be replaced at outrageous
expense.  Or be shipped offshore.  I've seen it happen several times in the
past couple of years.

Side note:  people on this list wonder why iSeries boxes (the most wonderful
machine in the universe, IMHO) are getting tossed out of shops and being
replaced by Unix and Windows hardware?  I submit that the fact that there are
dozens of IT departments that enjoy the ostritch position is a contributing
factor.

I can't go to ILE because it's cool, fab, trendy, hip, groovy, and modern. 
However, I CAN to ILE because it makes business sense to be cool, fab, trendy,
hip, groovy, and modern.  I CAN wake up, look around, and see (as Apple did
with the Mac) that the world is not a static place, that systems (hardware and
software) continue to integrate at a rapid pace, and that the more I make my
AS/400 an essential part of making my business successful, rather than
marginalizing it and turning it into a liability, the longer the box will stay
in its corner happily humming away.  

It means that managers have to start learning again.  They need to research,
and find the of evidence that shows in their situation that going to newer
technology has a sound business reason.  Even though that transition has a
higher inital cost and rocks the culture boat of the firm, provides a
longer-term lower cost of ownership and gives that culture boat calmer seas to
right itself.

OK, I shut up now.

-Doc