Re: Future of RPG

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:27:05 -0800 (PST), James H H Lampert
<jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The number one indication that a programming language is dead is that
> there's somebody trying to "keep it alive" by making changes that utterly
> change the character of the language.
> 
> The number two indication is that, assuming it HAS some strength that sets
> it apart from other languages, everybody's teaching how to use it to do
> things every other programming language can do, rather than teaching how
> to use it to do things NO other programming language can do. I.e., they're
> teaching to its weaknesses, rather than to its strengths.
> 
> I see both happening to RPG constantly, to a far greater extent than I've
> seen in any other language. All this free-format crap is a perfect example
> of the former, and the fact that many newly-minted RPG programmers not
> only have never written a "Cycle" program (conventional or UNconventional)
> in their lives, but were never even taught what "The Cycle" *IS*, or what
> it's good for (both conventionally and UNconventionally; indeed, while I
> use The Cycle whenever convenient, I almost always do so in unconventional
> ways, and only use those Cycle features that bear on the problem at hand).

I dont think IBM should change RPG either.  They should follow the
example of that other company that consistently makes a lot of money
by developing a new language that provides all the computer science
101 features needed for modular programming on the as400.

-Steve