×
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.
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Mike Jones <mike.jones.sysdev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Honestly, most OOP programmers don't know much at all about RPG or RPG
service programs, and most RPG programmers don't know much at all about
OOP. Hence, in most cases their opinions are uninformed ones.
Fair enough, but the ILE model of modules, service programs, and
executable objects is very strongly reminiscent of the classic
C-oriented model of program development, and no one in the OOP
community would seriously call that model "object oriented". My point
being: sure, OOP folks don't know about RPG. Pretty much nobody
outside the midrange community knows about RPG. But OOP folks ***do***
know about C. Part of the whole reason for the existence of OOP was to
go beyond what is natural to do in C. And I can tell you that RPG is
basically in the same category, computer-science-wise, as C. And
neither RPG nor C are object oriented to any meaningful degree,
according to what OOP practitioners would consider "object oriented".
I do consider service programs object oriented, but just not as flexible as
the capabilities of a language like Java or C#.
As I said before, I don't want to deny you your opinions. But this way
of using the term "object oriented" is really not compatible with how
most people use the term. You would be better understood by
programmers at large if you used the term "modular" for what you are
describing.
John Y.
midrange.com
