RE: Why no header files for RPG? -- RPG400-L

Why?

1) Because IBM U.S.A. has virtually no RPG programmers who would know how to
create a prototype. They have some, but apparently not enough to assign
somebody to actually do the work.

2) IBM Canada has RPG programmer knowledge but doesn't know the API set very
well.

3) Nobody predicted that RPG people would really be using the C runtime
library.

Look at the data structures for the APIs that IBM already ships today. They
are horrible! From/TO columns, "B" data types, etc. Most of been converted
from C or PL/MI listings to RPG "Input" specs and then translated by
CVTRPGSRC to RPG IV's "Definition" specs.

IBM is interested in _selling_  "solutions" (nothing wrong with that)
whereas most other platforms are interested in that as well as having 3rd
party developers and end-user customers write code for their platforms so
that more people buy them. 
In the product I offer and have mentioned here several times, I include many
RPG IV source for prototypes for OS/400 and C APIs. 
As a result of this note, I have decided to add a section to my rpgiv.com
website that will contain nothing but prototypes for OS/400 APIs or C
runtime functions. I will try to have it up by Monday with some prototypes
includes. I will post the ones I have in RPG xTools and others may post
their own so that we can make it a collaborative effort. Of course, in this
market space, collaborative efforts typically don't pay off too well.

-Bob



-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Larry
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:17 AM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Why no header files for RPG?

List,
 
Obvioulsy, it was a VERY GOOD THING that IBM went to the trouble of creating
the integrated language environment. This has afforded the RPG programmer
access to an unimaginable array of useful utilities - including the abiltiy
to call functions that were once only accessible using C.
 
One thing I have noticed on this list is the constant use of the question:
"Does anybody have a good RPG prototype for that?"
 
So, when IBM created the ILE, why didn't they create RPG and COBOL versions
of the C standard library header files? Most API documentation displays the
prototype in C and we (RPG programmers) are left to figure out what such a
thing as a size_t is. The C programer just bungs a #include <someheader.h>
statement at the top of their source and they're off.
 
It's got to such a point that I'm learning C to enhance my RPG skills. Is
that a good thing? On the one hand, learning C has given me a better
understanding of the underlying architecture. On the other hand, it can't
necessarily be a good thing to have to learn a second language in order to
get some more leverage out of the first.
 
IMHO, these standard functions cane no longer be regarded as C functions
(regardless of the language they are written in). The moment IBM allowed
access to the standard functions from all ILE languages, they should have
provided header files for each language that was integrated.
 
So, should RPG programmers need to learn C to better use such things as file
descriptors, sockets, StdIn, StdOut, MI functions, CGI programming, etc...
or should IBM provide standard header copysource files to allow all ILE
languages as easy access to such functions and APIs as C programmers are
afforded?
 
Wouldn't it be nice to simply use a IBM-provided /include directive in your
program to use such things a qsort, bsearch, cpybla, open, close, connect,
accept, atoi, bind, etc...
 
Your opinions are welcome.
 
Cheers
 
Larry     
--
This is the RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.