RE: Help! Boss wants to know why ILE?

Just to toss in a couple cents on the subject:

Subprocedures as a replacement for subroutines (don't tell me each
subroutine will now be a program object - the local variable argument)
has been absolutely wonderful for me. If you do it right, when you come
across a subprocedure being called while reading code the subProc name
should have meaning, plus you see the parameters being passed to it, so
you can then make a judgment as to whether you need to research that
subprocedure while maintaining, which can save considerable time.
Having local variables, data structures, constants, arrays and whatever
else means you don't have to flip to the top of the program to make a
change to them or to view their definitions (if you don't use WDSC
outline view). Also, with your subprocedure being entirely encapsulated
within itself (or at least mostly), it is easily portable to 1) another
module or 2) into a service program if you find that code being needed
by other modules.

Though replacing subroutines with subprocedures is simply an option you
have when deciding to utilize the ILE functionality. As mentioned, if
you code in RPG IV, you're already working with ILE. I'm not a guru and
can't say what the next logical step is of using ILE, but my guess would
be to make use of either multiple modules per program (instead of
putting it all in one module) or start making use of service programs
(which will require an understanding of procedures and binder source).

A book that helped me understand ILE is called ILE By Example by
Cravitz. Also I was lucky enough to get to Common and take part in the
ILE path that Jon Paris and Susan Ganter taught which was a great
learning experience.

Kurt Anderson
Application Developer
Highsmith Inc