|
I think IBM should focus 100% of their efforts on completing /FREE. Until RPG is a completely free-form language, it's incomplete and it does nothing to bring new recruits into the fold. I've talked with several "older" programmers who feel no need to move to /FREE because H, F, D, and O specs are still fixed-format. Younger programmers just turn their nose up at the current neither-fish-nor-fowl /FREE implementation. Seeing a moderately contemporary progam littered with /END-FREE and /FREE is more than moderately annoying. I can use my service program library to handle MOVE issues (and others) but the lack of a free-form GOTO/TAG is a burr under my coding saddle. My standard structure for handling a rich mixture of command keys, help panels, and lookups is not well-suited for the glib suggestion in the Reference manual to "use other operation codes, such as LEAVE, LEAVESR, ITER, and RETURN" instead of GOTO. Is there a technical reason GOTO and TAG can't be free-formed? Or is this the Programming Police in action, telling us a complex set of nested loops for flow control promotes program readability? I'm thinking about my customers' junior programmers trying to make sense out of Nested Loop Soup. Like most of us, I spent a lot of time in non-/FREE code, and I'd like to convert it to /FREE without rewriting it. It's well-structured code (not spaghetti); then I use CODE (i.e. leave WDSC, hop into CODE) to convert it, and it gets ugly with /END-FREE and /FREE from dealing with the unsupported op codes. We have a tool, /FREE, to cut through layers of to-do lists. It would be a better tool if it were sharper, and charging for the rusty blades of old, less efficient tools doesn't serve any purpose other than to annoy the small number of customers requiring the facility for program maintenance. -reeve On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:22:28 -0500, Bob Cozzi <cozzi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I spent one day at COMMON last week and talked with several of the IBM > Canada RPG IV developers. One of the questions that was asked was if IBM > could/should start charging for the RPGII and RPGIII compilers (some people > call RPGIII, "RPG400"). > > Anyway, I suggested that IBM should enhance RPG IV with two new features: > > 1) Allow blank lines in the source code > 2) Support the compiler parameters in the H spec, and translate those parms > when the CVTRPGSRC command is used. > > Without leading your responses: I'm wondering if you feel charging for > RPGIII would help/encourage you to move to RPGIV more aggressively? > > -Bob > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> > $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/saFolB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > www.RPGxTools.com > "Free your Limitations" > Now with CGILIB - The best CGI RPG library available. > > To unsubscribe from this list send and email to: > rpgiv-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RPGIV/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > RPGIV-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
