Personally I like the "structured" H, D, and P specs. I have had no need for I or E specs in years, and rarely use O specs. F specs could be easier to understand at a glance, but going to the other extreme would be just as bad, IMO.
If Bob's speculation is anywhere near correct in syntax I will avoid using free form H, D, and P specs. To me it is very easy to see:
D elementTemplate...
D DS Qualified
D Template
D name 30A Varying
D value 200A Varying
D attributes 10I 0
D attribute LikeDs(attributeTemplate)
D Dim(100)
D attributeTemplate...
D DS Qualified
D Template
D name 20A Varying
D value 200A Varying
Or
D parseRevChainBridgeJalResponse...
D PR
D 20I 0 Const Message Id
D * Const XML
D 10I 0 Const XML Length
D * Const Error Structure
Or
D driver S 100A Varying
D resource S 150A Varying
Or
D RevChainOrderSend...
D C Const('JAL_SEND')
And understand at a glance exactly what is being defined and how it is defined. The speculated syntax that Bob put forward requires you to read the definition.
If IBM were to adopt a free form D spec the syntax should be more Java or C like, not CL like. Structured D specs have a few minor limitations, name length being the most prominent, but there are simple work arounds built in so I have no problems with them
To me the easiest feature to implement that I would love to see is the compiler being able to compile free form C specs for the full length of the source DB record instead of starting at position 8 and ending at 80.
Duane Christen
--
Duane Christen
Senior Software Engineer
(319) 790-7162
Duane.Christen@xxxxxxxxxx
Visit PAETEC.COM
-----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
--
This is the RPG programming on the IBM i / System i (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
