What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

[Guest.Visitor]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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" 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.

[R.Daugherty]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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

[Guest.Visitor]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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

[Rkyrat]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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" 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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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" 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

[R.Daugherty]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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]

What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG?

** This thread discusses the article: What Does IBM Need to Do with RPG? **
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