On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Douglas Dunn <dunndouglas0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And I should probably get RDi.
You probably should, but it's not cheap. The reality is that many
developers make do without it unless it's provided by their employer.
I am still curious about the old fixed-form style, mainly because the
syntax looks very exotic to me. Can someone explain the concept of the
"cycle" that was mentioned about?
Others have talked about the cycle. Let me just say that the
fixed-form syntax and the cycle are independent of each other. At
least today they are; I am kind of hazy about the history. Today, you
can use either one without the other.
The fixed-form syntax is extremely reminiscent of old assembly syntax.
When I first encountered RPG, it felt very much like assembly to me,
and I am sure I've seen at least a few other people describe it that
way. No doubt both assembly and early RPG syntax were strongly
influenced by early computing devices in the punch card era (as I now
see Jon Paris has just described).
Honestly, I don't find the old syntax hard. In some ways, its forced
simplicity makes it easier. (In other ways, it's definitely worse,
though.) While I understand no one wants to encourage its use in
brand-new programs, I am kind of torn about maintenance (including
enhancement) of old programs that use it. As ugly as some people find
fixed-form, I think it has a certain rhythm and ease about it. Your
eyes learn to go to the right places, and you can tell certain things
about what something is just by *where* it is. To me, the ugliest is a
mixture of free- and fixed-form code. Which means the inertia for
fixed-form code is considerable. Not inescapable, but certainly not
quickly or easily brushed aside in "traditional" IBM midrange shops
with lots of legacy code.
John Y.
midrange.com
