Re: Is RPG dying

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Hans Boldt <hans@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There were a lot of things that could have been done to leverage the
architecture. For example, we had externally described files. We
occasionally suggested the concept of externally described modules.

But it always came down to funding. Anything substantial takes
resources. With the first RPG IV release, we were able to put a lot of
good stuff into the language. I'll always cherish my memories of working
on that project, and what we were able to accomplish. After that, we had
a couple more major items to implement. But once they were done, RPG was
pretty much back into maintenance mode, albeit with a couple of
enhancements each release. At each release, we had to choose what we
considered the most important items given the constraints. Thus, the old
$100 surveys.

The other side of funding is return on investment. What a shame that
IBM management does not appreciate the potential of software to grow
not only their market share but the size of the market.

Frankly, I'm still amazed that /FREE made it into the language. There
was so much controversy over that one feature that I gave it less than a
50/50 chance of seeing release. Later, I was able to leverage that into
some nice free-form I/O features. But /FREE still left me jaded and
cynical. (Or rather, more so!)

I actually appreciate the complaints of those who do not want to use
/free. There is a lot to be said for keeping things simple and making
it so you do not need years of experience and repetition to understand
how to write a software application.

But to answer in a different way, note that the languages with the
powerful features are primarily interpreted languages. In the past, I
often argued that compiled languages are not well suited for application
programming. ......
My point here is that interpreted languages are just so much easier to
enhance with powerful features. And that makes them much better suited
to application development.

well, Anders Hejlsberg does disagree ( I think )
http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/matthijs/C-40-and-beyond-by-Anders-Hejlsberg

I do like the idea of the externally described module. Which I assume
is a module that exposes all of its methods, types, properties,
attributes.

-Steve