[WDSCI-L] Re: WDSCI-L Digest, Vol 2, Issue 92

[MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx]

   Not to disagree, ILE has great advantages.  (Not to mention additional
   features, the compiler technology uses modern optimization techniques.  I
   understand you can see around 30% performance improvement by just
   recompiling.  But what am I doing telling you about this?)  But can't
   there be error handling issues when simply converting to ILE?  i.e., At
   times errors could go by unnoticed that used to cause an inquiry message?
    I thought I heard that in one of Susan Gantner's ILE sessions at COMMON
   and I can't put my finger on it, but I seem to remember seeing it in
   practice when we started changing some things over to ILE here in our
   shop.
   Michael Quigley
   Systems-Analyst
   The Way International
   www.TheWay.org

   Original message:
   ------------------------------

   message: 2
   date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:38:25 -0500
   from: "Jon Paris" <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   subject: RE: [WDSCI-L] How to update COBOL outline

   >> Is there an equivalent for COBOL? Can the source type be changed, and
   you're done, as you can do with RPG36 - or is it RPG38?

   No conversion needed.  The COBOL level supported by ILE COBOL is a
   superset
   of COBOL/400.  Most programs can simply have the type changed - then
   recompile and go.  The design point for the compiler was that if the
   generated code would not produce identical results to those that COBOL/400
   would produce, then it should fail the compile.  I have not personally
   seen
   any cases where this didn't hold true.

   The only real issue tends to be that it can be problematic to try to
   simply
   convert one program at a time as you can with RPG.  COBOL works best (and
   was designed to work this way) when you convert the whole program suite in
   one go.

   Jon Paris
   Partner400
   www.Partner400.com