× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



"Holden Tommy" wrote:
. . .
Since we should all be avoiding the logic cycle (IMO) *INZSR is a relic that isn't necessary.
. . .

In the first place, one of the major features of OS/400 is the ability to return from a called program without destroying its activation, then quickly and with little cost call it again. But such a program will almost certainly have costly initializations that need to be done on the first call, but should not (in some cases MUST not) be done again. How do you propose to do this without an INZSR?

In the second place, using The Cycle does not in any way require the use of a primary file, nor does it in any way preclude the exclusive use of full procedural files.

In the third place, if you believe you should avoid The Cycle at all costs, then I say you should avoid RPG at all costs. If AS/400 programmers had always used languages other than RPG for programs that made no use of The Cycle, then we'd probably have a lot more languages on the AS/400. I am sick and tired of people learning exactly one programming language, and calling themselves programmers. And if you perchance have a University degree in computer science, but haven't managed to learn more than one programming language, you ought to go to the computer science department of your alma mater, and demand a refund for your tuition, because they never should have allowed you to become so overspecialized.

Finally, I'm not opposed to the evolution of programming languages, but I AM opposed to taking languages that have evolved into something else beyond recognition, losing the distinguishing characteristics of their parent languages, and calling them by the names of parent languages they evolved from, but are no longer recognizable as. For example, I refuse to call any of the QBASICs or TBASICs or VBASICs "BASIC," because they have less in common with BASIC (whether you're talking Old Dartmouth, VS-BASIC, or Applesloth, or GW-BASIC) than they have with PL/I. Likewise, "RPG/Free" ought to be called something completely different from RPG, because it, too, has more in common with PL/I than with RPG. (Actually, in the latter case, as far as I'm concerned, it would have been a better use of resources for IBM to have turned OPM PL/I into a fully-supported ILE-based full implementation of the language, than to have done as they did, and stuck bits and pieces of it into RPG and called it "/Free.") When Sun decided to develop a platform-independent, web-safe language derived from C++, they did NOT call it C++-- (although the wags did); they called it something completely different (albeit something that showed the world they were drinking entirely too much coffee): They called it Java.

--
JHHL

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.