Re: Challenges using service programs, binding directories, etc.

On 18 August 2015 at 17:10, John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not all the disagreements fall neatly into that dichotomy either. For
example, when you describe binding directories, you make it sound very
newbie-friendly.

ILE was designed to do stupendous things. [...]
I don't need /all/ of the infrastructure of ILE, only enough to compile
*PGMs without having to remember a maze of compiler options each time.

Um, OK. I'm not seeing how that is a response to what you quoted from
me, but, fine.

The point is that the documentation is designed as a reference, not a
tutorial. The ramifications of any particular keyword or
implementation are left as an exercise for the reader. Simple
methodologies are 'in there', but not easy to see.

I'll give you one definition of 'newbie-friendly.' I'd been using ILE
for more than a decade. Went on vacation. One of my programs had an
off by one error (imagine that?!) That program used sub-procedures
from several service programs (thus, was an ILE program in my mind).
The programmer who handled the error was able to do a DSPPGM on
OFFBYONE and find the source member. QRPGLESRC member OFFBYONE. He
did a STRPDM, drilled down, found the source member, fixed the bug and
then used PDM option 14 to compile the program. Because the program
uses a /copy for the standard h-specs, and the standard h-specs
contain the BNDDIR() pointing to the service programs, the bind step
of the compile was able to locate all of the sub-procedures and create
the executable program.

This programmer exclusively wrote RPG III code. No RPG IV. No /free.
No EVAL. He used the exact same methodology to fix an ILE program
that he'd been using for 20 years on RPG III programs, and that
process worked without drama on an ILE RPG program.

Another definition of 'newbie-friendly' is ease of setting up. I
think I've covered that elsewhen. :-)

--buck