What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? [Archive]

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I agree with the article almost completely. As much as I love working on the 400 and love working with the latest and greatest techniques in RPG, it (RPG II/III/400/LE/Free) has become fragmented with the various OS's, which hurts all of us in the long run. Since I love new programming techniques/capability I would be disappointed if I knew there weren't going to be changes/enhancements for 3 or more years. When I hear about a new release of OS/400 the first thing I'm excited to check out are the RPG enhancements and what cool new things I can do. I would hate to lose that... Perhaps IBM is using that as a marketing ploy for the programmers to push for the latest and greatest upgrade? Gotta have it! But, as Bob points out, the programmer community does end up becoming fragmented. There isn't a good 'college' major for RPG/IBM systems analysis studies readily available for everyone, and when you can't get the expensive training that is available by the third party people, you either buy a book written by Mr. Cozzi, or you come to these web sites for assistance. Now Robert has to have multiple releases of his books for the OS releases, and it becomes too difficult for users to help each other because we are at different levels. RPG staff starts fading, the language gets a bad name, corporations don't want to use it anymore, and we are all out of luck. In closing I will say that RPG has grown so fast recently that, despite my feeling of being a proficient programmer, it has grown beyond me with the time I have available to experiment with the new capabilities/techniques that are out there. It will probably take me three more years to try out the new stuff. So I'm okay with putting a freeze on the current free-form RPG. What I think should happen however is give it a new name. RPG after all stands for "Report Program Generator" right? It is certainly WAAAAY more than that and has been for over a decade. Despite where it came from it would be hard for a new programmer to go back and look at the original code (RPG II) and even be able to tell what it is. Let's give it a new launch name I can be proud of spewing to my 'C++' and 'Java' friends and then work on this new staggered implementation schedule that Bob is talking about! jefferson

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I think it's great that IBM is constantly updating RPG IV. For those who haven't made the jump to V5, they only have a few months of support left, and incompatibility is the price they have to pay for lagging behind. You know what they say, fail to evolve, and you'll end up like the dinosaurs. As far as the complaint about the three different ways to chain to a record, I think I'm safe in saying that the new methods are going to be considered "preferred" over the old. The old method is hard to read (don't you love searching through the code to find which fields are in the key list, and then having to relocate the chain command?), and is probably only supported for backward compatibility. Same thing goes for BIFs vs. indicators. I found it interesting last week at COMMON that I saw a speaker, obviously proud of his code, remark about how much of his subfile program flow he could control with one indicator. I'm sure since he writes most of his RPG this way, it makes perfect sense to him, but to me, it really would be unreadable without comments. Sure a good programmer will thoroughly comment their code, but it makes it much easier if they don't have to explain what's going on each time they use an indicator. God forbid if someone else comes along with a modification and doesn't bother to update the comments. That's a great segue into my next point. Another post complained that Toronto isn't adding much new functionality, but "... having a programming language do the same thing in a different way." I would argue that most of the enhancements made in the last two releases either 1) made it easier to do something somewhat complex in RPG (i.e. data area handling), or 2) made the code much easier to read (i.e. the new chain syntax). The latter being much more important (to me) than the former. Who want's to rely on comments, when the code automatically documents what's going on (i.e. IF *IN01 vs. IF %FOUND(my_file)). In conclusion, stay at the lowest supported release if you want, but don't complain about the features that you miss. I've actually published utilities in the trade press, and I've only had one person complain that my code wouldn't compile due to the version/release issue. Thankfully, that reader had an upgrade scheduled for the next month, and wrote back that things worked great after they finally got back on a supported version of OS/400. Finally, for the poster who complained about not being able to keep up, do what Mr. Cozzi says and read the trade press. According to him, there should be plenty examples of the new features put to practical use there...

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I've been programming in RPG since the System/34. I've gone thru the System/36 phase and on into native AS/400 (oh excuse me...iSeries if you must). Anyway, it's been my experience that you use what produces the desired results in an efficent, timely manner for those who use your results (programs) to acheve their results (data manipulation, lists, etc.) and if you can do it quicker and more accurately using the PROVEN "old" techniques and you also can understand your code better, then so be it. Just do it. In my years I have found that there is no one person in upper management who gives a damn about what your code looks like or what techniques you use when writing a program. They are just concerned that their bottom line results are accurate. And after all, those are the people who signs my cheques and as far as I'm concerned, they're the ones I have to please. And yes, I still use the RPG cycle, indicators and such and proud of it. To hell with this free-form shi*.

buck.calabro@commsoft.net

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
While I agree that it would be nice to have ONE stable version of RPG that I could code to, and I agree that a public comment period would be tremendous, I'm not at all convinved that the additions to the language are crippling. Bob's remark that if he publishes /free code some 85% of the iSeries population can't use it is is dead-on. Only a tiny fraction of RPG customers are up to date. I suggest that this inertia to "keep doing the same thing" is what the problem is, not the pace of change in the compiler. --buck

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Bob Cozzi is one of the last real representatives of our AS/400 world. Yes I said AS/400 because I find trying to say e(logo)server iseries is ridiculous. He is also one of the few people I will take the time to read these days. I remember wishing there was a high level language when I was an Assembler coder. Then COBOL and RPG came along and it was wonderful. With RPG you could simply fill in a couple of columns and forget about coding Level break and Matching record logic. Not having to keep track of register addresses and pointers was also wonderful. Now it seems like everyone wants to be an assembler coder. Personally, I haven't found the need to use most of the new features of ILE RPG. I also have to laugh at many of the BIs(%), many of which make the code much more difficult to read, if you didn't write it. What IBM needs to do is to slow down the C++/JAVA coding style and focus more on direct access to the IFS and add graphical op codes. They also need to lose Lou's anything for a buck mentality. He's gone now, so IBM can get back to re-building the company instead of tearing it apart. Bob thanks for saying the things that need to be said, the quiet majority agrees.

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
1) Rename it! (You're not scared to change the AS400 to eServer iSeries, why stick to RPG? I had a PC biggot bash RPG yesterday based on the name and his view based on RPGII code exposure.) Application Program Generator - APG 2) Don't Screw it up. Making it look like C sucks period. When you add new functionality make it intuitive. 3) Give us the ability to natively access DB2 Universal, MYsql, etc.. so we can use it on a PC. 4) Fixed format RPG to me brings more to the table than does FREE format. I can write pgms to fix thousands of programs if it has a structure. Also within columns/fixed format you have cursor sensitive help text.

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Let us remind ourselves that RPGIII in the 1980’s gave us IF/THEN/ELSE, READE, DOxx and AND/ORxx. Without it, our brains would have become completely numbed by simulating structured constructs with redundant indicator manipulation. So who knows, maybe we really do want or need free-format RPG, where we can continue with the RPG tradition of conciseness, combine statements, lop off the EVAL and the Tab, Tab, Tab. That might be nice. Ironically, Bob Cozzi has been and still is, I suspect, a great proponent of all sorts of iSeries improvements (don't get tired Bob, you can really get on a good roll at times!). So I think we would want to keep Mr. Cozzi busy with all sorts of topics for advancement (did I read you can’t use MOVE with free format?), pressing forward on a timely basis, even if somewhat ad-hoc. Plus at any time, there is something to grumble about (who wants to wait 2 or 3 years to grumble?). This article is a refreshing twist because it provides an opportunity to comment on the trade press’s self-imposed pressure to discuss that very latest technique. I know I have a tendency to feel I don’t have time to study something now if I won’t be able to use for 9 months (off it goes to the reference library?). So my preference goes for trade press articles that help us more fully utilize what is relatively new (with a little what if?/grumble for IBM sprinkled in), while IBM keeps up that unique and proactive iSeries upgrade strategy.

S.Mildenberger

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I feel the evolution of the RPG compiler is in the right direction. The newer versions (with free format) allow code to be written that is much more readable and I know that I can be much more productive in the world of ILE than without it. I see many of the complaints about too much changing are from people who aren't keeping up and they just don't realize what they are missing. If some people are satisfied with what they can do today then fine, they can stay right where they are. But, I am going to continue to expand my skills and productivity and the enhancements to the RPG compiler are a big part of that, as are the client side tools like CODE. Scott Mildenberger

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I don't get it. Complain if they do nothing (I've been going to Cozzi sessions since 1990) and complain if they do something. I think the point is we all have our expectations as to how RPG should evolve. And, if our expectations aren't met then the prevailing attitude is to grumble. IBM will never meet everyone's expectations so there will always be a million grumblers out there. Unfortunately, one of the best all-time grumblers has a national forum with which to grumble. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. wrote in message news:6ae435c7.-1@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | This is a discussion about What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?. | | Click here for the article <http://www.mcpressonline.com/mc?1@232.1KNKfHX1eQT.17@.6ae42ff1>.

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
PTLMIS said: "I agree with Bob completely on IBM's rollout strategy. They are simply adding too many enhancements (changes) way too fast." IMO, that's not even remotely possible. Just because IBM makes a lot of changes doesn't mean you have to use, or even learn them all. Just learn and use the ones that work best for your shop. The prevailing attitude in this forum is EXACTLY why IBM never made many changes over the years. They felt that the stodgy, stubborn, graying customers that use the AS/400 line would be freaked out by it and they were afraid of alienating the stagnating customer base. So, what has it earned them? A SMALL stodgy, stubborn, graying list of customers. They weren't aggressive when the competition was and now the iSeries is small niche growing smaller by the minute. IBM is doing what they should have started doing in 1990: Aggressive improvements to the iSeries. Alas, methinks they waited too long. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Bob, I actually like redundancy. I want more than one way to do the same thing so that I can choose the one that's the most comfortable. For example, when in Windows when I want to open a file I know that I can click on File/Open or I can press Alt-F/O or I can press CTL-O. Three "redundant" ways to do the same thing, but that gives me flexibility. Same goes for my programming language. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Bob Cozzi" <Bob_Cozzi@mcpressonline.com> wrote in message news:6ae435c7.15@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | Thank you all for your valuable comments! Keep the coming. | Remember, my point is that RPG IV is being enhanced in a fragmented manner, not that the iSeries is evolving to quickly. Yes I want continued enhancements to RPG IV (or "RPG V") but I don't think they need to be rolled out in each release of OS/400. I would rather IBM take the time to ponder the enhancements and make sure they are consistent and valuable, rather than just release them and be done with it. My hope is for a better language, not a language with the most features or the most redundant features as some of your have noted.

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Ralph, I'm certainly not an expert with Java but I can try to answer some of your questions. 1. Even if the Java program is compiled with OPTIMIZE(40) and running natively on the AS/400, no. The time to initialize the JVM takes longer than the time to initialize an RPG program. 2. MC published 2 articles about 2 years ago that compared Java Record I/O, RPG I/O, SQL I/O, Java JDBC I/O, etc. I'm sure it's on this website somewhere (and a little outdated now). Try searching for "HOWARD ARNER" and "Database performance". 3. Are you talking about free form RPG to Java? It's getting there but RPG will likely never support OO techniques (except maybe overloading someday). 4. Don't know! CR

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
There's one simple adage in business that has held true in the 27 years that I've been in I.T. management. It is: "To be successful you must embrace change. Those that don't will be left by the wayside." I've always lived by this motto and it has done well for me. To blame IBM when one can not keep up is fruitless. IBM is just now starting to move at the pace of the industry. They MUST move at this pace or the future of the iSeries is doomed. The thing to understand is that the current "Y" generation, those just now coming out of college, are used to a frenetic pace. They will be the drivers and decision makers of the future and they will choose products that keep up with their pace. There will be no stopping or slowing of the rate of change and, in fact, I expect that the rate of change will accelerate even more. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "rikyrat" <rikyrat@mcpressonline.com> wrote in message news:6ae435c7.19@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | Not only is RPG out of control but the whole computing environment. It seems that every day they come up with some new scheme or language,which requires re-training (not a bad thing, it you are a training company). But, for the poor guy in the trenches, having to re-train every 6 months or so, it's hard. So I think that the whole thing needs to be slowed way down so that it can be absorbed and digested before the next onslaught.

Guest.Visitor

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Ralph, As to #4: I don't consider them fragmented. The fact that IBM keeps older versions around is a plus. Certainly Visual Basic 1 and Visual Basic .NET are completely different from one another yet no one considers Visual Basic a fragmented language. Why? Because Microsoft stops selling the prior version almost immediately after announcing a new version. What I'm hearing from the collective here is that because IBM supports prior versions of RPG the language has become fragmented. And, in fact, that's not the case at all. You have total freedom to stick with the compiler of your choice. IBM is not forcing you into RPG IV! If you're happy with RPG III or RPG/400 then stay there. But don't come down on IBM or the rest of the world because they choose to move forward. The threat of the future of the iSeries has nothing to do with RPG. A developer can develop in Java, RPG, Cobol or most any other language on the iSeries. The biggest threat to the iSeries is IBM. It kinda reminds me of the Ford Mustang. The Mustang was developed as a skunk works project by Lee Iacocca. When it was introduced the Ford management hated the fact that this rogue project was successful. Once Iacocca left Ford, the company tried for years to kill the Mustang (just look at the body styles of the '80s Mustangs) and couldn't. It had a strong following. Finally, in the mid '90s, Ford figured out that the Mustang was here to stay and they embraced it and it's now a fine car. Same with iSeries. IBM Armonk has been hoping the iSeries would go away for a long time. The mainframers have hated the competition. (Frank Soltis says that the most powerful server in IBM today is the iSeries.) The iSeries planners are geniuses, though. They've incorporated 5 separate architectures on the Power4 chip. One of those is the pSeries (formerly RS/6000) architecture. They were smart enough to do such a good job of developing a pSeries on the same hardware as the iSeries that they pSeries developers were eliminated from Austin. Now Rochester does all of the pSeries planning and development. (This according to Soltis at COMMON.) Do you know what other architecture is on the Power4 chip? Yep, you guessed it, a zSeries. It's sitting there, lying in wait. We'll see if IBM serious about consolidating hardware in the future, or if it's politics as usual. Today's iSeries is like the early '90s Mustang. It's got a great following but will IBM embrace it? Or has Rochester gone too far causing Armonk to lower the hammer even harder? chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Ralph Daugherty" <Ralph_Daugherty@mcpressonline.com> wrote in message news:6ae435c7.17@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | 1. Does an AS/400 compiled Java program without database I/O execute as fast as an RPG ILE program? My expectations are that it would. | | 2. Does an AS/400 compiled Java program with database I/O through Toolbox record level I/O calls execute as fast as RPG ILE program? My experience is that two years ago it benchmarked significantly slower, but my expectations are that it could run 80% as fast as ILE. | | 3. Is there any reason the syntax for freeform wouldn't be Java? | | 4. How could RPG/400, RPG IV, Code/400, and /Free not be considered a fragmentation of an industry so serious as to threaten the continued existence of software development firms developing commercial packages for the AS/400? | | rd

jwh@onofrio.com

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
IBM is notoriously known for always being behind when it comes to technology changes. I love the fact that most new releases of the OS contain new and improved opcodes and functionality. The typical programmer doesn't have to utilize these new tools and can bypass the literature that discusses these functions. Heck, even IBM has banned ILE in certain shops because they have programmers that can't grasp the concept thus stifling innovation from the others coders. In my shop I have to do it all. Without the new functionality and increased ability of RPG we'd be stuck with junk like NT for our Internet services instead of our tried true blue iSeries. Do nothing to stop IBM from improving RPG. Embrace the changes if you wish, ignore them if you wish, but only ignore them if you wish to be left behind like every other IBM technology introduction. Why do you think everyone kept saying RPG was dead and Java is the world's savior? Java is new and innovative and even embraced by IBM, a mistake in my opinion. These new continuous changes in RPG have breathed new life into old code routines and give younger coders more power to keep RPG alive in a Unix/Windows world.

mis@ptl-inc.com

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I agree with Bob completely on IBM's rollout strategy. They are simply adding too many enhancements (changes) way too fast. But... Most of the changes they have introduced are beneficial to the language in my opinion. Coding in free-form has saved me keystrokes (no more EVAL) and nesting makes it much easier to recognize program logic visually. With the added functionality of the new UPDATE opcode, exception output doesn't have to be used to protect fields in a record that are not being updated. What if you had to take back %EDITC? There were somethings that we were using the C Run-Time library to accomplish but IBM has addressed some of these issues in V5R2 so more explaining the "H BNDDIR('QC2LE')". We're a shop of 4 coding for about 500 users. So far not one of us has looked at the enhancements offered by IBM to the RPG language and said "I wish they hadn't added that."

Rkyrat

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Not only is RPG out of control but the whole computing environment. It seems that every day they come up with some new scheme or language,which requires re-training (not a bad thing, it you are a training company). But, for the poor guy in the trenches, having to re-train every 6 months or so, it's hard. So I think that the whole thing needs to be slowed way down so that it can be absorbed and digested before the next onslaught.

amoulton@aacanet.org

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
I couldn't disagree more with the article. I like getting the new functionality without having to wait. I understand the problem for consultants and people who need to work on systems at various levels, but I am a person in charge of two copmputers I keep at the same level. Why should I have to wait to make life easier for the consultants and multi level companies. I have programmed in RPG,RPGII, RPGIV and have enjoyed many of the enhancements. If you work on multilevel machine you shouldn't worrry about the latest and greatest functions. Decide what is the lowest common denominator and use that level. Heck pullout the chaining record format if you want, but I will take all the fucntionalaity I can get. The update you mentioned sounds great to me as I never use the update now becuase I never want to update all the fields. So now I can use update instead of except. Kepp up the good work IBM!

R.Daugherty

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
1. Does an AS/400 compiled Java program without database I/O execute as fast as an RPG ILE program? My expectations are that it would. 2. Does an AS/400 compiled Java program with database I/O through Toolbox record level I/O calls execute as fast as RPG ILE program? My experience is that two years ago it benchmarked significantly slower, but my expectations are that it could run 80% as fast as ILE. 3. Is there any reason the syntax for freeform wouldn't be Java? 4. How could RPG/400, RPG IV, Code/400, and /Free not be considered a fragmentation of an industry so serious as to threaten the continued existence of software development firms developing commercial packages for the AS/400? rd

R.Daugherty

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Chuck wrote: "...yet no one considers Visual Basic a fragmented language." This is extremely wrong, as I read in the trade press weekly. VB .NET is not being adopted in any significant numbers, it is widely acknowledged that only 40% of VB code will port with the rest needing to be rewritten, and there is even more unhappiness with .NET than with the VB 6 changes that introduced OO to VB. This is not a statement for or against the change, this is to simply refute the very wrong notion that VB is also not recognized as becoming fragmented. Of course, the M$ plan is for all to jump to the latest version, running on the latest OS. In other words, it is fragmented and will become more so. rd

R.Daugherty

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Chris wrote: "Even if the Java program is compiled with OPTIMIZE(40) and running natively on the AS/400, no. The time to initialize the JVM takes longer than the time to initialize an RPG program." Granted, I have read of the additional overhead of starting up the ILE environment over an RPG/400 program, and some might recall the nasty overhead of the C environment in the early 90's, but from an OS perspective I find this statement difficult to fathom. Wasn't the JVM built native into OS/400, wouldn't the JVM code be in shared read only memory, and wouldn't the initialization described be limited to the data segments (to use PC terminology) required for each new Java program? Given that the strategic direction of the AS/400 is as a Java machine, I find the concept of a JVM as a slow, monolithic monster which must be laboriously started up for each program to be incomprehensible. rd

R.Cozzi

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Thank you all for your valuable comments! Keep the coming. Remember, my point is that RPG IV is being enhanced in a fragmented manner, not that the iSeries is evolving to quickly. Yes I want continued enhancements to RPG IV (or "RPG V") but I don't think they need to be rolled out in each release of OS/400. I would rather IBM take the time to ponder the enhancements and make sure they are consistent and valuable, rather than just release them and be done with it. My hope is for a better language, not a language with the most features or the most redundant features as some of your have noted.

David Abramowitz

12-31-1969, 06:33 PM

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? (http://www.mcpressonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3663) **
Robert Cozzi hits the nail on the head with his latest column. Many of the "newest" features are nothing more than a reinvention of the wheel. RPG now provides at least a dozen different ways of accomplishing the same thing. Other languages can be written in different styles, but RPG actually has redundant verbage for the same functionality. I believe that much of the impetus for the current flavor of RPG is due to turnover in Rochester, and Toronto. Many of the compiler developers who were familiar with the historic customer base are no longer there. Those now in charge are JAVA, C++, and Visual Basic enthusiasts who have spent a great deal of time and effort making RPG look a heck of a lot more like JAVA, C++, and Visual Basic. When I converted three shops to RPG IV, from RPG III, I had to provide some justification. I was able to do this by pointing out the new date data type features, available for use with RPG IV. No other feature generated as much interest among the powers that be. Having a programming language do something new, is far different from having a programming language do the same thing in a different way. Robert Cozzi is correct when he points out that code written using new features at one shop may be unusable, or undecipherable at another. Give me something substantial that I can use in day to day business applications, and I will use it. Dave

R.Daugherty

10-25-2002, 07:58 AM

Chuck wrote: "I don't consider them fragmented. The fact that IBM keeps older versions around is a plus." Certainly backwards compatibility is critical and has been the hallmark of the Sys/3x line. However, unless development is overwhelmingly chosen in one of the RPG flavors, either software is fragmented or is not being developed at all. From my limited perspective on the industry, it appears to not be being developed at all. rd

R.Daugherty

10-25-2002, 08:03 AM

Chuck wrote: "Today's iSeries is like the early '90s Mustang. It's got a great following but will IBM embrace it? Or has Rochester gone too far causing Armonk to lower the hammer even harder?" This is very interesting comments and analogy, Chuck. rd

Guest.Visitor

10-25-2002, 10:10 AM

Ralph, Well, if the Java programs (servlets, JSP), are running on a server (in the context of HTTP and Websphere or Tomcat for example), then yes, it's resident and reentrant and shared by all requests. Under this scenario, IBM claims it's the fastest Java server in the world. But your 1st question was comparing the performance of an RPG program to a similar Java program without database I/O (perhaps a program that just counts?). AFAIK, calling a Java program from a green screen command line (or in QSH) will start the JVM every time and that's gonna cost you in performance. If I'm incorrect, I'm sure someone here will correct me (Don?). If the AS/400 could cache the JVM, why did IBM move just part of the JVM to the SLIC to boost performance? Regards, Chris

rdean400@yahoo.com

10-25-2002, 12:13 PM

RPG is not evolving too fast. If anything, it's not evolving fast enough. Most of the college kids coming out nowadays are being trained from the start on object-oriented languages. It doesn't seem far-fetched to assert that the mental leap required to grasp procedural languages when your background is OO is nearly the same as the mental leap going the other way. It's a significant shift...it's hard enough to get RPG programmers now; imagine what it will be like when the new programmers don't have any experience with procedural programming. I'm not saying that OO should be on the table for RPG, but it would be good if syntactically, it were easier for these programmers to grasp the language. The recent changes, including free-form, and "Qualified" data structures, are a good step in that direction.

D.Handy

10-26-2002, 10:28 AM

PTLMIS said: "I agree with Bob completely on IBM's rollout strategy. They are simply adding too many enhancements (changes) way too fast." Chuck said: "IMO, that's not even remotely possible ... IBM is doing what they should have started doing in 1990: Aggressive improvements to the iSeries." I agree with Chuck. And this includes aggressive improvements to the dead (?) RPG language. I realize that Bob's gripe is not that the language is improving, but that in his opinion the changes did not go through a long enough review process and produced inconsistent syntax, or inconsistent feature sets. I don't view it that way. Let's look at the specific examples cited. The CHAIN syntax was claimed to have four different syntax variations, and the implication is that they were not well thought out. Yet an alternative was not proposed. Granted, the fixed format vs free format have a different syntax: Fixed: operand op-code operand Free: op-code operand operand But that's no great surprise or learning curve; they all act that way. Calling the free format CHAIN three different syntaxes is missing the forrest for the trees. All of them are still "op-code operand operand", with the first operand being the search value. So what's the big deal between the operand being a single field name, a parenthetical list of fields, or a %bif() expression? They all specify the search key, and all follow the "op-code operand operand" syntax. Calling them different syntax and hard to learn is like saying it is hard to learn a command where you can specify a single value as a parameter, a parenthetical list, or a keyword with a value. In each case you are specifing one parameter, just like each of the "three" free-form chain syntaxes. I see absolutely nothing confusing about these "variations". In fact, I don't even consider them to be any different. Just like I don't consider a command syntax to be different because you coded a list instead of a single value. What's the real gripe here? If you waited 3 years to have more time to think about it, how else would you implement the ability to provide a list of fields to chain in lieu of a key list? The way it is implemented *does* seem consistent to me. I didn't see an alternative proposed. (And getting rid of free format is not an alternative, Bob <g>). Regarding the alleged inconsistency between UPDATE and WRITE, what is the advantage to waiting a few years and doing both at the same time? In my experience, it is comparatively rare to want to WRITE a new record and populate just a few fields, while it is very common to want to UPDATE only a few selected fields. I'd vote some of my $100 towards the UPDATE capability; I could care less about the WRITE capability, but it wouldn't get any vote dollars from me. I have no problem with getting the UPDATE capability sooner, as opposed to having to wait for WRITE to get the same treatment. I, for one, am estatic to see RPG getting rapid enhancements. RPG was a great language for business applications in spite of itself; now it is maturing into an even better tool. I also don't have a problem with trade rags publishing code using new language features -- even if I can't compile and run it as is. Articles *should* be educational, and show how to do things you don't already know how to do. I don't want all utitlies printed in RPG III... Doug

frankgw@adelphia.net

10-27-2002, 04:34 AM

"4. How could RPG/400, RPG IV, Code/400, and /Free not be considered a fragmentation of an industry so serious as to threaten the continued existence of software development firms developing commercial packages for the AS/400?" ---------------------------------------- To Ralph & others - Ouch! No wonder my head is spinning. No wonder I haven't had as much time to participate in forums recently. Since 1961 I've personally been involved with custom written code. If fragmentation and the ever increasing rate of change are making it difficult for software development firms, what do you have to say about about shops with custom written code? What about the smaller shop with just a few technical people? Ouch! My head spins faster. I am the I.S. manager of a smaller shop. Are packages and web services really the future? Will all custom coders become systems integrators? Will we all be renting our applications from giant utilities in the future? What about distinguishing one company's business processes from its competitors?

David Abramowitz

10-28-2002, 07:44 AM

I believe that one of the points of the article was that new developments do not necessarily mean new functionality. In point of fact, many of the new RPG features add neither functionality, nor ease of use, but merely a different way of accomplishing the same thing! Dave

Guest.Visitor

10-28-2002, 08:04 AM

Doug said: "I also don't have a problem with trade rags publishing code using new language features -- even if I can't compile and run it as is. Articles *should* be educational, and show how to do things you don't already know how to do. " Amen! I certainly don't see any Windows 3.11 tips in PC Magazine. Part of the job of a trade magazine is to drag us, kicking and screaming, into the latest and greatest. However, in my case, it's not kicking and screaming. I can't wait to get the latest information so I can deduce trends and futures. Doug also said: "I don't want all utitlies printed in RPG III..." Most of the utilities that I need are never coded by me anyway. I leave that coding to Jim Sloan. For less cost than about 18 months subscription to iSeries News magazine there are MORE commands in his TAA Tools than IBM delivers with OS/400. Certainly more value for the utility tools dollar than I've EVER, EVER received from all of the trade magazines combined! chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

D.Handy

10-28-2002, 10:42 AM

Chuck said: "Part of the job of a trade magazine is to drag us, kicking and screaming, into the latest and greatest." Or rather to educate as to what represents the latest and greatest, even if you make an informed choice not to implement it. Even you said you wanted to deduce trends and futures. Regarding magazine utilities, I generally peruse them for techniques, but I don't know if I've installed one verbatim. And from a technique standpoint, I *want* them using the newest language features. Doug

Guest.Visitor

10-28-2002, 04:12 PM

Since I am programming in RPG ( 8 years +/- )I have thought why RPG could not handle date fields being OS/400 capable of doing it?. Why should I code hypotenuse =sqrt(a*a + b*b) in so many lines that it becomes unreadable?. Why must I limit my field length to 6 when files handle larger lengths (even larger with SQL)?, and so on. I recognize that in its beginnings RPG was such an incredible Report Generator. I admire the concepts of RPG cycle and matching records that my senior work mates tell me about and I do not know about, that can do a report in few lines and less effort. But as we have seen through RPG history, it has been requested more from it and it have been transformed from a report generator to a programming language. And now it has another challenge, object oriented programming, but this time with a horrible disadvantage: RPG did not go through code reuse and other concepts that would made it easier to keep the pace ( correct me if I am wrong). I agree with Mr. Dean that RPG is not evolving fast enough. One of the main cons I see in RPG/400 is the cost of developing cycle and code reuse, this is now being amended. I have read in this forum phrases that converge to a classical symptom in implementing a new technology: resistance to change. Let us surpass it and enjoy the advantages that are given to us. "Elder times a better" if you want to do a report or bulk processing a file, but if you want to react to a new world call API's, use BIF's and make programs easy to maintain. How you develop is not *the one who pays* concern, it is yours as a developer and it is your deed to be prepared. I know it is hard to get ahead ( training is not a priority in the budget ), but one step at a time will save us from mediocrity.

Guest.Visitor

10-28-2002, 04:56 PM

Do not take me as rude when I say that this is not about Java, or C++ or whatever else you find in the iSeries but about RPG and in some way about you as a RPG programmer. But I want to take advantage that you mention it so we can get some things clear out of it: 1. If a Java program does not execute as fast as an RPG program, IBM will find out how to accomplish it. 2. The same. 3. Freeform syntax can be still related to RPG syntax, just the concept of *punched card* is missing. 4. RPG/400, RPG IV, /Free are the signs of evolution ( painful it may be, but evolution at the end), and CODE is a tool not a fragmentation sign. But most important: 1. Designing and developing a system is easier, faster and more cost effective in Java than in RPG/400. And you can reuse and improve your code without pain. 2. Using RPG IV and ILE you can shorten considerably the gap between RPG and Java (you can even use Java objects from RPG, if you wish), and take advantage of RPG performance. 3. As I have been told, nothing compares to logic cycle or matching records in doing a report (some times I would like to know how to do it). But this is something good that is lost for future's sake. At the end, there are good things you loose in the way, but they are no reason enough to stop improvements and for you to not learn how to use them, but at your own pace. I am sure nobody is pressing you to be in the front end of this changes, but I know that if you use them it will be your profit.

rnettgen@legalplans.com

10-29-2002, 04:49 AM

I agree with Jefferson – give the language with new features a new name, perhaps even a compiler distinction. Call it “C pro” or “I+” for the “C like RPG for the iSeries.” For college students (and perhaps faculty, too) RPG has a stigma attached to it. New programmers don’t want to learn an older language. If this new RPG language looks like C, smells like C, and eventually, is named like C, then IBM might attract “fresh blood” to the iSeries development ranks. Otherwise, the iSeries will suffer not just because of the misperception that it’s “the old AS/400,’ but rather because new programmers who haven’t been evangelized by the iSeries faithful don’t want to learn RPG. I admit to personally having this prejudice myself 17 years ago. I wrote applications in dBase and Clipper on the PC platform of the mid 1980’s – that code resembles the feel of C++ or VB or RPG in V5R2 today. It permitted much creativity, modularity, and rapidity of development. Once you’ve “experienced” the easy way of doing it, you don’t want to try the harder approach. Back then I resented having to take a class in RPG II to get my degree for I had already “proven” my abilities in “superior” languages. (Like many college students today, I thought I knew it all back then, too.) IBM – Keep pushing the language forward, but consider a split track – perhaps two languages. Like Classic Code – provide “classic” RPG for the experienced developers who have paved many miles in that flavor. And then add another choice, RPG V or “I+ V5R2” for the iSeries. Since the ‘400 is more than capable of running everything, two or more compiler flavors of RPG shouldn’t be two hard. And then, the great wizards of programming, such as Mr. Cozzi, can address the articles to each particular flavor.

Guest.Visitor

10-29-2002, 06:48 AM

I'm all for advancing the profession and the tools we have to live with. However, I totally disagree with where RPG is going. IBM should be giving us simpler, smarter ways to develop applications. And don't even tell me Code/400 and Web facing is a step in the right direction. What we should be getting is far better than a BI for an end file that kind of works. My point is that even you raving RPG Free enthusiasts need to expect more for your time and money. These little tid bits we are being given aren't worth the time and money it takes to learn to use them. Let RPG be RPG and let's spend some money on a new language like MS did with C#. We need something that is graphical and native. And it needs to be as readable an simple as RPG and COBOL. Now that would be a reason to change.

rdean400@yahoo.com

10-29-2002, 08:10 AM

There are too many programming languages already. I've actually done work with Basic / VB, C, C++, Java, Pascal / Delphi, Assembly (6809, x86, 68K), Mathematica, RPG II - IV, CL, JCL, Perl, UNIX shell scripting, and PHP. I've seen code for Python, COBOL, FORTRAN, Lisp, Prolog, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Scheme, Guile, Ada, Haskell, Forth, ASP, C#, Objective-C and others. To my mind, there isn't a very good reason to have so many languages, other than some person or company was scratching an itch. It would be better to maintain backwards compatibility while advancing the language. The decision to use the advances is optional -- but the advances should be backported so that the compiler can create objects that work on prior versions of the OS.

GlenKerner

10-29-2002, 10:09 AM

Bob, your article hit a spot I think most of us have voiced at one time or another. I believe you have only hit the subject half way. One point that I think should have been mentioned is how many companies using the AS/400 are actually using all these "new fangled features". I have noticed that most software packages are still using RPG III and RPG II code and styles. Some incorporate a little of RPG IV and fewer still some ILE. We a AS/400 programmer and systems people try to utilize the new features but I personally have not found a use to use Procedures. I didn't even see 1 line of RPG IV code until 2 years ago. The user community has not been that gunho to revamp all the code they have to the "new and improved" version of RPG. The documentation for RPG has never been good, which makes it very difficult for us to learn all these new procedures. So, If IBM were to better evaluate and schedule RPG enhancements better document how to use RPG and the new enhancements I think we would all be a little more enthusiastic about the enhancements. Just my convuluted 2 cents.

buck.calabro@commsoft.net

10-29-2002, 10:26 AM

<blockquote><tt>4. How could RPG/400, RPG IV, Code/400, and /Free not be considered a fragmentation of an industry so serious as to threaten the continued existence of software development firms developing commercial packages for the AS/400? </tt></blockquote> That's a strong sentiment, and one I can't really grasp. I am probably THE most antique of the posters on this topic, having started in the S/3 model 10/12 days. If I can handle the changes to RPG, I think anybody can. I personally have no trouble whatsoever moving from editing my /free BIF-laden code with Code/400 to a matching record program in S/3 RPG II style using SEU. I did just that last week. It reminded me of changing seats from a 3741 to a 3277 to a 5251. The keyboards were different, but as a human being, I was able to adapt to the differences and still get lots of work done. I agree with Bob that a formal public review period for change would be Nirvana, but I do not agree with the general sentiment that RPG is now too difficult to work with because I can use 4 varieties of CHAIN (as an example.) We have always seen variety in the way code was written: look at the number of "standards" for indicator usage. --buck

buck.calabro@commsoft.net

10-29-2002, 10:37 AM

<blockquote><tt>I'm all for advancing the profession and the tools we have to live with. IBM should be giving us simpler, smarter ways to develop applications. </tt></blockquote> This is a very reasonable wish; requirement, even. That's why I use Code/400 instead of SEU. It's much simpler to get code changed and has triple the IQ of SEU. You have a differing opinion of Code/400 and that's okay. Perhaps there needs to be a thread on editors where people can trade ideas? <blockquote><tt>My point is that even you raving RPG Free enthusiasts need to expect more for your time and money. These little tid bits we are being given aren't worth the time and money it takes to learn to use them. </tt></blockquote> There's a lot of heat in there, but I can't see the fire. How hard is it to understand today=%date(); ? <blockquote><tt>Let RPG be RPG and let's spend some money on a new language like MS did with C#. </tt></blockquote> But isn't that exactly what is happening? 1) Nobody, anywhere is forcing anyone to use anything newer than S/36 RPG II. Anybody can load the S36EE on their machine and work in the environment that is comfortable for them. 2) V5R1 RPG IV still does matching record. You can't code using the exact same columns, but you can in fact code the same exact opcodes I used on S/3. 3) RPG IV has lots of new features and even a new name. Perhaps a better question might be "What do we mean when we say 'Let RPG be RPG'?" --buck

Guest.Visitor

10-29-2002, 10:48 AM

Bob's remark that “If I write a piece of code that utilizes a V5R1 built-in function, that code cannot be used on V4R5 or earlier. Again, nearly 85% of the RPG IV users out there would not be able to take advantage of it.” Here is my answer: ...YOU NEED to update OS/400 as soon as possible to be able to utilized its new capabilities!. How many of those same companies are running DOS 7.0 on their PC's or maybe Windows 3.1. Most likely they are on W2K or XP or moving to them. I LOVE what IBM is doing with RPG ! it is about time KEEP IT COMING !!!! I will ask IBM to continue to package RPG II (..no need for if/then, case, while/for loops, subroutines ….that is what indicators and GOTO’s are for) for those of you that want to continue to help the so called consultants and RPG haters bashing the iSeries for the shortcomings of the language. (I still have some RPG II templates and132 report column forms for reports, I will be happy to mail them to you. Remember RPG stands for Report Program generator. So ALL it can do is create reports. …”actual words from a consultant I met recently”) IBM: For those of us that welcome the updates give as a NEW LANGUAGE call it APL (Application Programming Laguage). Introduce it with V5R3 ! Now, IBM have just increased the number of languages that an iSeries box can run. COBOL, Java, C, RPGII and APL !!!! Take your pick ! (forget RPGIII and RPGIV…. too complex to use) and that my friends is my humble opinion! PS: Ford just announced some “NEW” model T’s for those of you using RPGII

J.Wells

10-29-2002, 10:57 AM

"....NEW LANGUAGE call it APL...." Sorry, APL already exists. I do not know much about it, but I do know it is supposedly an actuaries best friend. I also heard that it stands for "A Programming Language"! Joe P.S. http://www.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis400/apl/apl.html

R.Daugherty

10-29-2002, 01:23 PM

I wrote: "4. How could RPG/400, RPG IV, Code/400, and /Free not be considered a fragmentation of an industry so serious as to threaten the continued existence of software development firms developing commercial packages for the AS/400?" buck, you took fragmentation to think I meant difficulty in handling multiple versions of the RPG language for some reason. None of these syntactical variances are difficult for the typical RPG programmer working with an existing body of code. Of course, somebody wanting to do something in a newer style and not having a body of code in it has to figure everything out, and often for no benefit but their own enrichment as it would be a variation project that is sometimes not welcome or even allowed in shops. What I mean by fragmentation threatening commercial software development for the AS/400 is not that multiple versions of RPG would be too difficult to work with, nor this notion that's been repeated a few times that RPG should stay dumbed down for consultants so they don't encounter difficulties moving from shop to shop. That's actually hilarious, given what all consultants encounter in their travails. Rather I meant the body of work of green screen packages that made the Sys/3x line the workhorse of mid sized industry was in RPG II, then RPG III, with a common green screen interface and a common development environment. Packages were written and sold with RPG source code, and a rich custom code business rule industry existed to let businesses run the way they needed to compete. There was no fragmentation of development, with even case tools generating out RPG that could be modified if required. But now, are there any new RPG packages being written in any of these versions? Are there any new AS/400's being sold to run packages like businesses used to do to run the competitive AS/400 retail, warehousing, financials, and manufacturing packages that used to drive business? If one were to start a software company now, would they write the software in any version of RPG? They used to, why not now? There's no one reason, and I'd love to hear several of them, but one outcome of that I think is that I never saw RPG IV permeate the commercial package market and make its way into AS/400 shops as RPG III/400 packages did. Much custom development is driven by the base code in a shop, and if RPG IV was the base code custom code would probably be in RPG IV as well. The notion is apparently that the base code may be RPG/400, but custom code would be done in RPG IV/ILE to take advantage of better syntax and modularity. If enough custom code is written, then inertia builds, espcially with subprocedure modules that can be linked to new programs. Maybe that happens in places, I know it does at work here with RPG IV but not ILE modules, and maybe it doesn't happen so often. Certainly the base being in RPG IV/ILE would make the difference, and the fact that RPG IV/ILE not being widespread in commercial packages is really the key, in my mind, that most still work in RPG III, as I do in my customized package work here. Through the last couple of years we've had some interesting discussions here at MC about RPG being the ideal database I/O business logic engine, and developing it isolated from the interface. I did that writing the Jobs400 backend a couple of years ago in RPG ILE, including modules, and driving a web site, green screens, and batch jobs simultaneously from the same server programs. Again, though, without a commercial implementation in place developed in that manner, I think it would be more difficult than desirable for most to put that architecture into place and build on it, nothing like patterning on a commercial architecture in place. Will the new AS/400 program development environment that I read about last year become widespread enough that it will be a no brainer to develop new AS/400 commercial software in it? And if so, what will be the architecture of that commercial software? RPG programs called by JSP's generating web pages? If not that, what, and why? Or will there ever be new commercial software developed again for the AS/400? rd

buck.calabro@commsoft.net

10-29-2002, 02:09 PM

<blockquote><tt>What I mean by fragmentation threatening commercial software development for the AS/400 is not that multiple versions of RPG would be too difficult to work with, nor this notion that's been repeated a few times that RPG should stay dumbed down for consultants so they don't encounter difficulties moving from shop to shop. That's actually hilarious, given what all consultants encounter in their travails. </tt></blockquote> <blockquote><tt>Rather I meant the body of work of green screen packages that made the Sys/3x line the workhorse of mid sized industry was in RPG II, then RPG III, with a common green screen interface and a common development environment. Packages were written and sold with RPG source code, and a rich custom business rule industry existed to let businesses run the way they needed to compete. There was no fragmentation of development, with even case tools generating out RPG that could be modified if required. </tt></blockquote> Very eloquent! I'm getting closer to understanding your viewpoint, so if I miss something, please bear with me... The fragmentation you speak of isn't the language, it's the runtime and development environments? ("...common green screen interface and common development environment.") The green screens I've been exposed to have been a tremendous mis-mash of old-style S/36 array-based lists, S/38 style subfiles (in all three flavours) SAA CUA panels and even UIM. SDA menus and hand-rolled, no common SFLxxx indicators; you name it. It seems to me that green screen was fragmented even in the S/36 days between the people who created arrays and those who used variable start line. The development environment is a very valid point. One cannot approach ILE with the same happy go luck attitude when dealing with OPM programs, that is for sure. But I liken ILE to the introduction of external files. I remember the uproar when external files were introduced to RPG "Now we have to compile TWO things to make a program work!" Somehow, the majority of RPG folk got past that, even though we do occasionally forget to DSPFD before recompiling that printer file and lose all those attributes that live only on the CRTPRTF command, and not in the DDS. (Common external file complaint number two.) If one looks at ILE in the same vein as external printer files, it can be seen that it brings the possibility of much complexity, and many opportunities to make a mess, but it also allows for great flexibility, and managing the practical complexity is not all that difficult. <blockquote><tt>Is there any new RPG packages being written, in any of these versions? Are there any new AS/400's being sold to run packages like business used to do to run the competitive retail, warehousing, financials, or manufacturing packages taht used to drive business? </tt></blockquote> My company writes new software every day using Synon and RPG. We sell iSeries boxes to run that software and have displaced competitive Unix solutions. I would say that there are still some of us out here! <blockquote><tt>Will the new AS/400 program development environment that I read about last year become widespread enough that it will be a no brainer to develop new AS/400 commercial software in it? </tt></blockquote> Eclipse? My dim bulb just lit up another candlepower's worth. I Run Eclipse here just for Code/400, but there is a lot of cool functionality in there, and it's getting stronger all the time. Our product isn't web based (yet!) but if it were, Eclipse would be an excellent solution for bringing together all the components required to build true web apps. But for today, all I use of it is Code/400, which I love to pieces! But this isn't really part of Bob's original article... <blockquote><tt>The notion is apparently that the base code may be RPG/400, but custom code would be done in RPG IV/ILE to take advantage of better syntax and modularity. If enough custom code is written, then inertia builds, espcially with subprocedure modules that can be linked to new programs. </tt></blockquote> I've been around midrange machines since 1978, and I can easily remember how hard it was to buy any S/34 based software aside from a few large packages. S/36 had more applications, and finally saw the birth of a (very small) independent software business, but it took at least 5 years to get rolling, and that in the days when there was no real competition. Today, the PC gives all midrange software houses fits. How often do we hear that "We can put up a Linux web server for the cost of that old PC we were going to throw out." It's not true, of course, but we hear it all the time. Windows is everywhere, and the cost of a Windows box has reached the commodity level. iSeries hardware (and therefore software!) cannot easily compete based on price, and it seems pretty clear that efforts to differentiate us in other ways have not been entirely successful. I don't think that BIFs, or Code/400 or Eclipse are responsible for the recent (past 5 years) performance of iSeries software houses. It seems clearer to me that many of us sat on our laurels while the PC world was hungry and went after our market space. If few RPG applications are written today, it's because the current iSeries market is already saturated with mature products, and is too small to support more software houses. I don't blame RPG or the development environment for that. Interesting thread! --buck

rdean400@yahoo.com

10-30-2002, 07:22 AM

I don't work for ISVs, so we can use whatever we want. I can see, however, the point that changes should be backported so that ISVs can make use of them.

D.Handy

10-30-2002, 07:46 AM

Robert, I can see, however, the point that changes should be backported so i that ISVs can make use of them.  What is the financial justification to IBM for doing a backport? What budget does it come from? It likely would have to come from the existing budget used to support the compiler, meaning we'd see far fewer enhancements to the language. How far back to you port it? For whatever reason, it seems a surprising number of companies still run an OS release which is not even supported by IBM anymore. Why would IBM port changes to it? There are CISC boxes which can't go beyond V3R2. There are early RISC models (mine included) which can't go beyond V5R1. Does that mean I expect IBM to continue to provide me with the language features they add in V5R2+, just because I can't upgrade? If all new features were backported to old releases, what would be the point of a new release? You'd just issue the new functionality in PTF's. But can you imagine the testing required since people may have different combinations of PTF's installed? I think IBM's current policy is very reasonable. Doug

R.Daugherty

10-30-2002, 08:28 AM

The only reasonable approach is going by the backwards compatibility of the OS, which as far as I know is what is being done. If a company doesn't want to update their AS/400 hardware and OS/400 releases, then why would we think they want to buy newer app releases? I think it's silly for both IBM and software vendors to not sell older software with limited warranty. It's just a matter of cutting a tape and shipping it. They should consider it a cash cow, but instead are forever fearful that customers won't be locked into their current software plans. So instead they sell nothing. Real smart. rd

Guest.Visitor

10-30-2002, 12:03 PM

If you were a PC programmer would you expect to make sure your programs ran on Windows 3.11? Even Microsoft gets into the act. The next version of Office, Office 11, will NOT run on anything less than Win 2K or Windows XP. It's simply too expensive, and often impossible with certain features, to make a program usable on back versions of the OS. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Robert Dean" <Robert_Dean@mcpressonline.com> wrote in message news:6ae435c7.45@WebX.WawyahGHajS... | I don't work for ISVs, so we can use whatever we want. I can see, however, the point that changes should be backported so that ISVs can make use of them.

Guest.Visitor

11-06-2002, 06:19 AM

While I agree that the radical changes leave gaps between versions of RPG, I appreciate all of the new enhancements to RPG. The gaps are a necessary side affect (read necessary evil) of implementation of newer technology. As a developer, there is nothing more frustrating to me than not having the right op-code to do that special something and having to uglify my program with a bunch of long-winded code. For example, how ugly is it to execute a CL command in RPGIII style? The whole call syntax is rediculous! Yes, if you're used to it then it is a no-brainer to waste hours of you development time trying to find the end of a controlled structure block. This is (and would have continued to be) unavoidable when you have such a limited set of op-codes (read capabilities). So why not avoid the no-brainers and use your brain to come up with more elegant solutions. It's always argued that newer syntax read more complicated but this is always the argument of developers who don't want to learn new things. In this line of business that attitude is cancer. You have to learn new things and adapt to change. That is the fundamentals of science. I relate this to medical science. You wouldn't want to wait for the cure to cancer would you just because some other group of doctors haven't had time to understand it? No, you would want the medicine yesterday especially if you or your loved one was afflicated. Well in this business we are the doctors and our customers are the patients. The customer wants these solutions yesterday. Using legacy technology, however releveant you feel it is, only boggs down and adds to development time. Let's face it, we're not stuffing envelopes here, we're building enterprise systems. There is no one solution that is good forever. There is no one solution that suffices even for the short term. Your code style should change more frequently than your clothes and if not then something is wrong. Clifton