Thanks for the article link, Hans.
I'm all in for a fully free format RPG. I really don't get what you're talking about with a window of opportunity. I wish WDSC would color code %BIFs. I've been wishing it for, oh, 5 years or more. If they suddenly did it, I wouldn't say, "Sorry, you missed your opportunity." Now, if you simply don't care about what they're doing, then that's a whole nother story.
From the article:
"...no RPG IV programmer today would admit that they enjoy typing in the COLON separator."
Honestly, I never minded. I hit the shift key all the time for uppercasing without a thought. Sure, I don't type a colon and think, "Man, my day was pretty crappy, but now that I typed a colon, I think it's looking brighter." I'm splitting hairs. I do agree a comma is probably better, I just think his comment was a bit over the top.
A comment about his speculation... I think that the conversion should be done without the DCL opcode. I think it's excessive and it doesn't allow for visual differentiation. All I see are a bunch of DCL statements. For comparison:
Bob's Speculation:
dcl File(myFile)
dcl var(myVar) Len(5)
dcl const(myConstant) Value('test')
My Preference:
File myFile
var myVar Len(5)
Const myConstant Value('test')
Eliminates the need for the DCL and also no longer needs parens around the name of the value (that's 5 keystrokes not including two shift hits)
I do like his idea of the indenting DS. However, instead of a DCL DS(mYDS) I think a simple DS; or DS myDS; would be sufficient to start the DS (since you don't need to name the DS). I do like the EndDS; idea.
So while my email has been a bit picky, I actually really enjoyed his article and speculation. I am excited to see a true free-format RPG language.
-Kurt
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Boldt
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 8:31 AM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RPG V?
Bob Cozzi wrote an article on what a fully free-form RPG V language
might look like, based on rumors that IBM is working on such a thing. I
have my opinions on the subject, and I'd be curious to know what others
here might think.
(See
http://systeminetwork.com/article/what-rpg-v-might-look)
What do I think? As the principle developer behind free-form calcs, you
might think I'd be happy to see a fully free-form language. But I'm
finding it hard to get excited about the concept. I think IBM missed
it's window of opportunity years ago. There was a lot of excitement
surrounding the release of free-form calcs. IBM should have capitalized
on that buzz immediately, and followed up with additional free-form
specs in the immediately subsequent releases.
But, at that time, the concensus was that there weren't really any
significant advantages to making other specs fully free-form, and that
other enhancements took priority. That's probably still true today. I
think RPG still needs some work in certain areas, such as namespace
support, an IBM-supplied procedure library, and externally described
procedures.
What do you think? Is there a need for RPG V? If IBM is indeed serious
about an RPG V, what might the rationale be?
Cheers! Hans
midrange.com
