RE: Compile error when using field in a subfield data structure

> From: Andy Holmer
> 
> Joe,
> 
> <disclaimer> I am not trying to be argumentative, just to offer
another
> opinion. </disclaimer>

Andy, I have no problem with other opinions, or even arguments <grin>.
My problem is with Hans' attitude that if you don't use /free you're
some kind of troglodyte.  That's silly; there is no "right" or "wrong"
syntax.  No language is inherently better than another.   Any syntax can
be misused.  Yet Hans will have you believe that you're wrong if you
don't use his particular favorite.

Obviously a lot of people prefer the older fixed format style.  This is
especially true in real-world shops that actually maintain existing
code, since there's no utility to cleanly convert to /free.

As I've said repeatedly, some of the main hurdles to /free were imposed
by the RPG team themselves, and that was because they considered
themselves the arbiters of "right" and "wrong" in programming.  And
that's the attitude I am railing against.  I am not arguing that /free
may have benefits.  I'm saying that those benefits don't make it
"better".

Fixed format code that is well structured and commented is far better
than free-format code that isn't, and as you've pointed out, people
abuse /free in many of the same ways they abused fixed RPG.

Finally, the current forking of the language, where enhancements are
added only to /free, is more divisive than anything.  The unnecessary
requirement of /free and /end-free and the lack of support for certain
opcodes is ill-conceived. Remove these arbitrary restrictions and my
guess is that the new syntax will have more takers.

Joe