RE: Midrange Knowledge test

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Jim,

At 1/2/04 11:22 AM, you wrote:
 You are correct that much of the performance wisdom that was applicable 
and widely popular many years ago is moot today.  Advances in hardware 
(both in speed and architecture) and the newer compilers have changed the 
playing field.


> If I were still managing developers these days I'd still avoid the cycle.
> The cycle is powerful, but I think it's better suited to the days when
> development environments could be AS/400 shops or RPG shops.

 I'm not following that logic.  Unless you specify NOMAIN, the cycle is 
built into every RPG program.  Coding around it is a stylistic choice.  If 
you understand the language there's no reason that you can't use the cycle 
to improve readability of the program.

 It seems odd to me that "everyone" is ga-ga over (set-at-a-time) SQL, 
which is basically mini program with its own cycle, yet can't wrap their 
brains around the RPG cycle!


> These days it's hard to find a single-platform environment.  When you've 
> got developers
> moving from platform to platform I think it's better to expose the database
> processing logic in the code than to depend on discrete characteristics of
> the compiler.

 Every compiler (and language interpreter) on each platform has its own 
unique characteristics, so you may as well use the strengths of each 
language (within reason, so no flames about writing everything in MI or 
Assembler.)  Obviously if you are coding to multiple platforms your coding 
decisions will be different.  But to automatically code to the lowest 
common denominator is counterproductive, IMHO.

 I don't understand how using multiple platforms would influence your 
decision whether to use the cycle or not.  If you are using RPG in the 
first place, multi-platform compatibility is not  your first worry, since 
RPG is only truly compatible to the IBM Midrange.

 -mark

 -mark