Re: *INZSR - I still love you!!!

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anton Gombkötö wrote:
> What is *INZSR so different from the methods(?) that are "called"
> automatically when a new object in an OO language is created?

As I mentioned earlier, there are much differences between procedural 
languages and object-oriented languages. The *INZSR might seem 
comparable to a constructor in an OO program. But in an *INZSR, you're 
not initializing instance data as you would in a constructor. 
Constructors are pretty much essential in OO programming, but you can 
easily do without the *INZSR in most situations.

> To populate some variables with a more sophisticated logic as INZ()
> will be the most likely task of both, or?
>
> As long as we use RPG, we should use it at its best. When we get and
> get knowledge of better languages/methods/ways, we should evaluate to
> use them. (I think Hans' mails are having effect :-) That's just fair
> to the customer paying us!

Using some tool at its best may well mean ignoring certain features of 
that tool. It's not just a matter of knowing how to use the features of 
the language, but also when NOT to use certain features. Considering the 
RPG language is a good 43 years old, it's easy to understand why there's 
lots of baggage that's kept around solely for backwards compatibility.

> > But then again, I like grits with eggs and sausage instead of hash
> > browns - go figure!!
>
>
> What are hash browns? Drugs? In the morning? :-)

Think finely chopped "Bratkartoffeln".

(I noticed you didn't ask about grits! ;-)

Cheers! Hans