think it's time to put this to bed....at the end of the day this is not
available at the moment. I'm sure that Barbara and all the IBMer's have
enough of an idea to help decide which route to take for the future. I'm
sure that the compiler team will do a good job of implementing this when
it's time for them to address it. I have enjoyed the thread and see a lot
of potential from the suggestions/preferences given but this is becoming
one of those "my way is better than your way" diatribes....JMO
Thanks,
Tommy Holden
"Turnidge, Dave" <DTurnidge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
05/15/2007 08:44 AM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
RE: Max length of a VARYING field
FWIW (and I can already hear, "Not much.") I have, um, "enjoyed" (is a
little too strong) this discussion between those that are more adept at
RPG, et. al., than I am. Way better than discussions of airports and
other tripe that has been discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum, before.
Kinda to bad to have the discussion go into the realm of personalities
tho...
Thanks to all of you (INCLUDING Joe) for the discussion - I'm not sure
what I have learned specifically, but there's a lot of fodder that may
be beneficial in the future...
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pluta
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:09 AM
To: 'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'
Subject: RE: Max length of a VARYING field
From: Scott Klement
Joe Pluta wrote:
And I expressed my opinion! Isn't the Internet great?
Sort of. You basically approached this with the "Nope, IBM should
keep it VARYING and automatically adjust the size of the index."
Actually, Scott, that's sort of not the case.
I started by saying use a constant VARFLD_ADJUST_LENGTH.
I then stayed out of it while the great minds of the 21st century
debated the VARYING vs. VARLEN concept. Finally, I threw in my two
cents to use a reasonably named keyword (*MAXxxnB). You said it was too
long and too confusing. That was when I finally switched to the idea of
using a prefix whose size was based on the maximum length of the field.
So, as it turns out, my position actually grew and changed throughout
the discussion. Which is what these forums are for: the exchange of
ideas.
Despite
that I had already given my reasons why I didn't like that as much,
you persisted in making me prove that my way was better -- without
giving ANY reason why your way was better.
I have explained in detail why I prefer the auto-sized prefix approach.
It's 100% backwards compatible with no additional keywords to learn.
Not sure it's "better" or even "mine" since it grew out of discussions
on the forum, but it's the one I prefer.
In other words, put the burden of
proof on Scott, and then every time he wastes his time explaining it,
come back and give some alternate solution to the problem so that
Scott has to come up with another example or another reason why his
way is better. On and on and on, debate about it for days...
You must be much fun in design meetings... <grin> Seriously, Scott,
that's the point: if you present your opinion in a public forum, people
are allowed to disagree with you, and tell you why! If your only desire
is to tell us what your opinion is and we shouldn't gainsay it, then
you're on the road to becoming an "industry expert". And frankly, I
think your opinions are worth much more than that. Most of the time I
agree with you, actually; I even named one technique I use every day
after you: KlementParms.
It's not that I don't value your opinion, Joe. It's that I don't want
to sit here and debate about it.
It seems that every time I get into the same conversation that you're
in, it turns into a long protracted debate. I just wanted to say my
opinion, not fight about it.
Do you see what you're saying? You just want to tell everyone what your
opinion is. And really, that isn't even the case: you want everyone to
AGREE with your opinion, else you wouldn't argue about it.
At one point I went so far as to say "I would stick with the *MAXxxnB
were I to use keywords, but I prefer the implicit size." That's about
as even-handed as you can get, Scott. I simply said I prefer my view.
Anyway, I think the concept here is interesting. I like the forums not
solely because I get to present my ideas (although there is a certain
amount of vanity in having people like ideas I present) but also because
I learn new ways of looking at things. People poke holes in my
positions, although they had better bring their A game when they do,
because my opinions (despite your characterization) are generally pretty
thoroughly thought out.
I suppose there's a line between being thorough and being argumentative,
and I'm as guilty as anyone of crossing that line. That's my nature; I
prefer my opinions to stand up to the most rigorous of arguments,
because that's what makes good decisions.
Anyway, if I've offended you, Scott, by presenting alternate positions,
then I apologize. If your goal really is to simply present your
opinions without any discourse, then I'll try in the future to not
comment on your posts.
Joe
--
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.
midrange.com
