Re: Impossible to even think about rewriting in RPG

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Bryce Martin <BMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I find the ability to structure code in an indented and readable fashion
to be worth the switch all by itself.  No need to use the opcode eval all
the time.  Just for two reasons to move to /free.  Add in all the great
long variable names I use and my main line code reads like a logic
diagram.

These are fine benefits to RPG IV, and to me, the cost of using them
(versus traditional RPG/400 or earlier) is extremely small. (Well,
the issue of whether /free is more readable is subjective, but if you
*do* like it, the cost of using it is small.) But these things are
not ILE.

 It takes time to shake the monolith way, and the fixed format
way.  I had only coded like that for about a year before I made the switch
and fighting the tides of change here had its greatest ally in results of
maintainable and fast running code.  All subprocedures, not subroutines.

Interesting. The ILE manual itself states that EXSR is faster than a
subprocedure call, and my own informal, nonscientific observations
agree with the manual. But this is a minor issue in most cases (like
the performance penalty of the FOR loop, or using PACKED numeric
types).

I will happily agree that maintainability is a high priority. I would
contend, though, that subprocedures, in and of themselves, are not
significantly more maintainable than well-designed and well-executed
traditional structures. (One concrete example: changing a parameter
definition in a same-module procedure requires making a change to two
places in the code, typically very far away from each other, compared
to making a single change in a well-designed EXSR-using program.)

And as time goes on, it becomes easier to do and faster to implement.
Monolith programmers weren't built in a day, and retraining them will take
time.

I applaud your patience, optimism, and diplomatic approach!

John