Re: RPG IV release levels and complexity

[Anton Gombkötö <gombkoetoe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

> IMHO, this is the problem.  IBM shouldn't be breaking backward
> compatibility in new releases of OS/400 for any products.   That's what we
> should be pushing IBM about, rather than pushing for a release-neutral
> RPG compiler.

what i would love to see under the christmas tree is the latest RPG
compiler, and that one should be doing its best to translate the
latest in programming that i code to the best that it can for a prior
release. Qualified DS e.g. might be feasible without the latest OS
underneath, if my picture of the "world underneath my feet", where
Hans works and helps us (he might see the whole picture upside down
:-), isn't completely wrong.

The message that a feature isn't supported (the compiler should at
least know it and tell me "sorry, guy, that came with V9R8, you can't
compile that back to V2R3.") should only arise when there's absolutely
no way.

But it is not christmas, and i don't believe in the fat man with the
white beard in the blue collar riding in this sleigh power by 16
32-way-890's throwing down gifts like that, and i do understand that
isn't achievable with nowadays resources and the taken paths.

So we have to face it - if we want to use the new stuff, it's *our*
job to convince our companys and our customers to upgrade.

And they might get a lot for their bucks - again, (partial) our job.

But IBM's support for "doing the job" is surely best on the latest
releases - regardless whether that's about RPG or anything else on the
platform. "It" just got "better" in a really big number of ways.

And didn't you notice that the voices "the iSeries is dead" are no
longer to hear (or i turn deaf at last :-)? Maybe they come back again
when IBM switches back to a lower gear now... :-)

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / best regards

Anton Gombkötö
Organisation und Projektleitung

Avenum Technologie GmbH
Wien - Salzburg - Stuttgart
http://www.avenum.com