×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
What have you been smoking, Steve?
Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
--
B&W Wholesale
office: 615-995-7024
email: jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Richter
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 5:21 PM
To: RPG programming on the IBM i / System i
Subject: Re: RPGV?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Hans Boldt <hans@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I greatly fear that if OO were tacked onto RPG, RPG would become like PL/X.
In my opinion, if you want to do OO programming, do it with a language
where OO was built in right from the start.
I would take a whole bunch of features out of RPG. I think that could
be done with minimal impact on anything written since V5R1.
Data struct overlays. The feature where matching field names from two
different files share the same static storage certainly goes. All I/O
is done thru qualified data structures. primary files, matching
records, level breaks - gone. Output specs can stay, but the output
fields are contained in implied data structs. No built in opcode
support for data areas. C specs go. What remains can then be morphed
into a modern language. Where data structs and standalone fields are
value types just like the struct in C#. Pointers and based variables
are a problem.
midrange.com
