What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

[R.Daugherty]

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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 ). 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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

"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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

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.