Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

[R.Cozzi]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Sounds like you are all saying that C++ or Java is your language of choice; you just need IBM to change the names of those languages to "RPG V" and you'll be all set to go. PL/I was (is?) a great language and has a great syntax, IMHO. The issue is one of politics. Apparently OS/400 programmers can't use C/C++ in their shops so they want RPG IV to become C/C++ like. Why not just use those languages? They all come with your WDS language package, right? Use them. I do.

[Guest.Visitor]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
avahamn said: "In Fixed Format RPG it is easier to follow." I know these are religous wars but IMO fixed format has very little advantage and, certainly reading of the code isn't one of them. I've learned over 20 programming languages and the ones that allow indenting always make the program easier to read. Unfortunately, the SEU editor for CL is enormously stupid and continually wants to format the code, especially if you prompt for a command. When I write CL I take out the keywords and just leave the parameters to it's easier to read the code and allows me to control the indenting of the program. avahamn also said: "Unless IBM will provide a smart editor where You click on a IF or DO statement and it bring You to the ELSE and ENDIF automatically." RPG Alive does a yoeman's job of trying to show you loops and structures. So does the TAATOOL "Indent". chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[tswales]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Unless IBM/someone decides to write a true free-format alternative(incorprate CL, DDS, API's, etc) to fixed format RPG there's no compelling reason to switch. It's native PC development vs native /400 development. It's just easier to use SEU on the /400 for RPG and fixed format at that. You can't change the whole architecture just because a few statements are horizontal vs vertical. You can't change the stripes on a zebra and it seems no one except IBM wants to. But even more interesting is this figure - <> Where did you get that number? What's the real figure for full-time RPG developers?

[buck.calabro@commsoft.net]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Bob Cozzi said: > Sounds like you are all saying that C++ or Java is > your language of choice; you just need IBM to change > the names of those languages to "RPG V" and you'll > be all set to go. > > The issue is one of politics. Apparently OS/400 > programmers can't use C/C++ in their shops so > they want RPG IV to become C/C++ like. > Why not just use those languages? Just a guess, Bob: many iSeries programmers are conversant in one language only. It's easier for someone to ease in a few lines of C-like code into an existing RPG program (like reading from the IFS) than it is to write a complete C module or program to do the same thing. Just a thought... --buck

[David Abramowitz]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Bob Cozzi wrote: You'd think that a one gigabyte WDSc could do this I'm relieved to see that I'm not the only person who thinks that WDSc is too large. After working with Visual Studio, I also find WDSc slow and unintuitive. This has counter-balanced the rich functionality of the product. I believe that IBM is aware of this perception, but I do not know if anything is being done about it. Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Bob, this is one of the ONLY times I've disagreed with you. I deal with dyed-in-the-wool programmers every day who will not learn something new just for the sake of being stubborn or lazy. Programming, as you know, is all about learning new things as they become available, separating the good from the bad new features, and then choosing the best methods to add to your toolbox. In the case of free-format, it's one of the things that seperates modern languauges from the "good-ol-days" of assembly language, Fortran, and RPG. Readable code is extremely important-- both from a re-usability standpoint as well as from a learning standpoint. One of the major learning curves associated with programming for the AS/400 is in fact the fixed-format limitation. I use the term limitation because that's exactly what it is. I'm not going to give it credit for being "consistent" either. It's a by-product of an old machine limitation that no longer exists. When we train programmers right-out-of-school, most of them have already become fluent in C, C++, SQL, etc. It is quite shocking for them to have to revert to fixed format. In this case, the cost of the learning curve is much greater than it's worth. Instead of learning an outdated way of coding, they can be almost immediately productive through the use of /FREE. The very founding concepts of ILE preach compatability and easy portability of code. Try converting old RPG III code to Java and it becomes apparent why /FREE exists. Accordingly, I almost always find that when someone is convinced that /FREE is useless-- they also don't think too much of modularization either. Now, I know that you are mainly saying that /FREE is frivilous for programmers used to programming the old way, but could it be that you have fallen prey to "Good-ol-days" syndrome? Very Respectfully (I consider you one of the top programmers alive), Scott

[dacust]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Lots of good points in the posts, so far. Here's a couple of other advantages to the old fixed format RPG. You can scan for characters by position. First few characters of a field name in the result column. There are times you can do scans that just can't be done otherwise. Fixed positions sure makes writing code generators easier. On occasion, I'll write a shell conversion program, then write another to read that source, modify it for file name, field names, positions, etc. and then write out several hundred source members for compilation. Sure, it could be done free format, but fixed is much easier.

[Guest.Visitor]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Hi Daniel, Not only do I agree with your points, but I myself have employed that technique when dealing with code on older systems. However, I think we might agree that when you get into writing code generators and/or using them for mass-coding that code readability and re-usability isn't normally a big concern. We use both commercial packages like ProGen and our own shop-based generators, but only with the stipulation that it's a quick-fix for a mass distribution like you mentioned. Anything going on a client's system typically gets re-coded in /FREE, mainly because we've made that the standard for any production code that originates on our system. It insures the ability of any of our programming staff to be able to fix bugs in code quickly for our 24/7 365 clients. Now, understand that if the code is already written in fixed-format and won't necessarily benefit from /FREE besides the readability issue-- we typically leave it that way unless we have time to change it. I definitely see your point though as far as an advantage to having fixed positions. I'm a big advocate of /FREE for new code and fixed for old. Scott

[dcpence@san.rr.com]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Bob: This very subject is an ongoing debate in our shop. As you so succinctly stated, there were many compelling reasons to go from RPG III to RPGIV, not the least of which was access to a number of new data types, but we just do not see that many advantages of converting to /FREE at this time. Keep up the great work. Doug Pence

[David Abramowitz]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Are we voting? It appears that all the posts have very strong feelings on the subject one way or the other. I think perhaps the point of the article has been missed. IMO, my perceptions were that as long as additional functionality is not needed, existing code techniques would be satisfactory. Using /FREE for additional functionality would be warranted where needed. To me, this takes a middle-of-the-road position, to which I concur. Further IMO: Too much of the "new" features in RPG development, are merely a rehash of existing features. A person who is legitimately an RPG expert might have difficulty deciphering another programmer's code, simply because a different technique was used. Let Java be Java, let COBOL be COBOL, let RPG be RPG, and let C be obscure. Dave

[R.Cozzi]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
Well, the thing is I am not one for the good old days when it comes to programming. I am just so disappointed that (A) IBM did not want to allocate the proper time to do a free format specification that was 90%+ "right"; and (B) They did not do free format so a very good programmer at IBM did it himself (effectively) and did not have to follow a rigid set of standards, and therefore implemented compromises that we as RPG programs now have to live with for the rest of our lives. It is disappointing; so I choose to not go there at this time.

[R.Cozzi]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **

>Let C be obscure

LOL! and AMEN!

[buck.calabro@commsoft.net]

Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction?

** This thread discusses the article: Fixed Format: Is It an Addiction? **
> Let Java be Java, let COBOL be COBOL, let RPG be RPG, and let C be obscure. Hi Dave! I don't think anyone will disagree with you on the above, but I think the question is this: What exactly is RPG? I learnt RPG II on System/3, so my idea of RPG might be different from someone who learnt on System/36 and someone else who learnt on System/38. Certainly, RPG IV's extended factor 2 bears little resemblance to the assembler-like RPG II I started with, but there's not much debate on whether THAT is 'true' (my word) RPG or not. So... what is 'true' RPG? Operation codes in a single column? No line terminators? Upper case? This has been an interesting discussion. For my part, I can't use /free until all of our clients move onto a V5 release, but I have been using it occasionally for internal tools. I have to say that I haven't been put off by it's similarity to C, but perhaps I've been beaten down by all the adaptations I've had to make in the past as I worked simultaneously in RPG II on S/3, S/32/34/36, RPG III on S/38 and RPG III on AS/400... --buck