RE: RPG V?

[Kurt Anderson <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This has been a great thread to follow.

I'd love to have better support for data structure arrays and being able to perform %lookup on them, however I have them defined.  As it stands, whenever I have to work with DS arrays, I generally pull out a conference handout I got years ago about the intricacies of it.  (It seems that my logical approach to them is generally not supported for lookups.)

Most of my gripes/concerns/wishes generally have to do with RDi.  I sure do miss my 90-day trial.  (Although my boss recently talked to me about 6.1 again... *crosses fingers*.)

That said, I can see the concerns with the time it may resources involved to convert RPG to a full free format language, but I do feel, as it seems with some others, that if you want the language to hold interest in future generations, give them a language they want to use.  (Although I'm guessing that introduction to the language using RDi would go a long way vs an introduction to it via Green Screen.)

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Crosby
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 3:39 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: RPG V?

IBM?  Over-engineer?  Surely you jest.

<g>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Jan 8, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Hans Boldt wrote:
>
>  >> Hindsight is always 20/20. A different pre-processor architecture
> occurred to me long after I left RPG that would have satisfied SQL's
> concerns, and offer the flexibility of the OS/2 inner/outer architecture
>
> For me it wasn't strictly hindsight - but I was out of the immediate
> loop at the time and by the time I heard that the design was going the
> "wrong" way it was too late.  At least some interface capabilities
> were added. But of course even if the design you mention had been
> proposed in time, it would have meant higher costs for Rochester and
> there's no guarantee they'd have found the funding. Water under the
> bridge.
>
>  >> Regarding "Open I/O", I'm looking forward to seeing what it is.
> I'm hoping it's something that lives up to the hype, and not just some
> warmed-over SPECIAL file support (which seems to be the consensus
> among those of us who haven't signed an NDA).
>
> Personally I'd be happy with updated SPECIAL file support, and I
> suspect anyone expecting anything that is light years beyond that may
> be a little disappointed. To me the critical part is that the new
> support is not so over engineered that it locks out future
> enhancements. Time will tell.
>
>
> Jon Paris
>
> www.Partner400.com
> www.SystemiDeveloper.com
> --
> 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.