Re: RPGIII compiler vs. Visual Basic

[Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx>]

In response to a number of posts, from different
authors, I think RPG developers can be assured that
their investment will be protected, probably for many
years after .Net dies, not just because of the
historical longevity and stability of the language,
but because it's so intrinsic to the native virtual
machine.  Predicting the death of RPG is essentially
the same as predicting the death the iSeries native
virtual machine.

Steve keeps repeating how IBM has moved on to Java,
Linux, and PASE, but somehow fails to see the
connection between those new environments and the
native virtual machine.  Consider that the native
virtual machine will still function without the new
environments, but none of the new environments will
function without the native virtual machine.

Based on articles at MSDN, it appears to me that .Net
as we know it today, probably won't survive the
transition to Microsoft's 64 bit operating system. 
That's should be no shock.  This is a pattern repeated
many times during Microsoft's history.

I have nearly as much experience developing
applications under MS technologies as I do under
OS/400, and my primary reason for developing under
OS/400 is to protect my investment.  I got tired of
Microsoft pulling the rug from under me, so to speak.
 
I use ILE languages every day, but have the admit that
the component oriented patterns I use now, could be
implemented similarly in RPG III, and would perform
fine.  There's no reason to follow "monolithic" design
patterns in RPG III.  In contrast, most of the code I
wrote in VB 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 won't run under
.Net today.

Next to protecting my investment, my primary reason
for developing under OS/400 is because it offers the
best platform for deploying Web interfaces.  It
appears to me that the transition to Web user
interfaces in the near future, will dwarf, in
comparison, earlier transitions to GUI components
[VBX, OCX, ActiveX, VCX, Swing, etc.], while the
return to server-centric computing will dwarf, in
comparison, earlier transitions to client-server
models.

This is a great platform!

Nathan Andelin



--- Douglas Handy <dhandy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> 
> -- 
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
> (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit:
>
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the
> archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com