Re: Resort back to RPG? -- WEB400

Eyers, Daniel wrote:
> Seems like I heard these same ideas when structured code was
 > introduced.  Looking at market forces (and IBM's response),
> ILE RPG looks *more* like an OO language than it looks like
 > RPG/400.  Sure, the syntax is the same (mostly) but the
> structure is vastly different.

Speaking as someone who's been dealing with programming languages
for the past 25 years, and RPG in particular for the past, oh, 21
years, ILE RPG IV is still nowhere near object oriented languages in
its capabilities.  In many ways, it still hasn't caught up to some
languages in use 30-35 years ago.

There are a number of capabilities and features that are generally
needed for a language to be considered "object-oriented".  Things
such as encapsulation and inheritance and polymorphism.  These are
just fancy words for the idea of bundling up pieces of data with the
functions that deal with it, along with the idea that an object
class based on another object class can inherit its methods and
instance data.

And while it's possible to use OO-inspired techniques while
programming in procedural languages, and that may well result in
better procedural designs, it's still not really OO programming.

 > I haven't seen java adapt a procedure model yet.....

1) Generally, you can, if you really want to, write a Java program
in a purely procedural manner.  2) Generally, few Java programmers
really want or need to.

> As I have said in the past, use the tool that fits the job.
 > That also means if you have a bunch of RPG coders working
> in your shop, java may be relegated to niche applications.

In other words, if all the carpenters in your shop only know how to
use a hammer, the only business your shop will do will be to drive
in nails. ;-)

 > The needs of the business must dictate the requirements.  If
> you don't have the expertise in java (and you don't want to
 > hire Joe's folks to help) you need to stick with what you
> know.  On the other hand, if you feel java will give you a
 > strategic advantage (decreased development cycle, reduced
> maintenance costs, etc.) then you should pursue java with a
 > fervor.

To be honest, there are some things about Java that bother me.  I've
been quoted as saying that Java combines the worst characteristics
of compiled languages with the worst characteristics of interpreted
languages, but I'm sure I read that from somewhere else.  One thing
that bothers me is that there seems to be an "us versus them"
attitude among RPG programmers.  That is perhaps exasperated by the
fact that there only seems to be these two alternatives on the
iSeries: RPG or Java.  Looking at it another way, it seems to be a
battle between the "little guy" and the "enterprise".  Java seems to
be this big monstrosity that's targeted primarily for the big guys,
since no one person can reasonably expect to learn everything that's
needed to use Java and its associated tools effectively.

And so, it seems that the iSeries programming community has split
into these two polarities, with little middle ground.

No answers, just some observations.

 > Sound like many folks want to delve in java with a
 > foot firmly planted in well understood technologies (like
 > RPG).  However, the early adaptors will have distinct
 > advantage in the marketplace.

The problem is that understanding Java and OO design in general is
very different that procedural programming, and requires a different
"mind-set".  In many ways, the only programmers who can use OO
effectively are those who start by learning OO.  To be blunt, many
programmers in our generation probably will never fully understand
OO, even after taking courses and reading all the right books.

Hans