Re: RPGIII compiler vs. Visual Basic

[Douglas Handy <dhandy@xxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

>The VB/RPG analogy has a lot to be said  for it. 

I'l buy that to the extent that both VB and RPG allowed "programmers"
to be fairly productive and require less programmer training than
other alternatives.  Or in some cases for both environments, have no
real programming training at all.

I don't buy the analogy that VB6 to VB.Net is the same thing as RPG
III to ILE RPG, or that dropping support for VB6 is like having no new
enhancements to RPG III.

First, to my knowledge, there is no plan to drop the RPG III compiler.
 You should be able to do maintenance work on existing RPG III code
for the foreseeable future, with no forced rewrite.  And programs
compiled using the RPG III compiler are still supported and run on all
OS versions (from the target release forward).  That is hugely
different than not having VB6 continue to be supported, even if it got
no new language enhancements.

Secondly, RPG III code can be run through a vendor supplied conversion
and with very few exceptions (such as the FREE opcode) produce
compatible source which you can then simply compile or enhance using
new features.

While it is true that this won't convert a monolithic app into a more
modern design, it does provide a near zero cost to get onto the newer
compiler and have full access to all new language features as you make
incremental improvements to the application.

As I understand it, you can't do the same with VB6 to VB.Net and just
get the VB6 project sources to recompile under VB.Net -- perhaps I'm
wrong because I haven't gone down that road yet.

>Maybe MS has it right - better to force your users to upgrade.

So it is a *good* thing to tell companies the software they wrote
(perhaps) only a few years ago may not run in the future and they must
re-develop it using a better software architecture?  Even if it is
currently doing what it is supposed to and there is no ROI for a
re-write?

Wow -- I hope you have pointy haired bosses (and investors) who will
buy that reasoning.

Doug