Re: Application modernization & re-engineering (was: What should Isay to a *nix community?)

Only that each newer version added opcodes.
Many of the S36 enhancements came only after the AS400 was out and
IBM issued a final release.
Even though you have s/32 era code, it must be s/36 compatible to be
running, and executable in s36ee on system i.
I'm still converting s36 code for customers who chose the "fix it when
it needs fixing" route. In the brief period where IBM was going to pull
plug on RPGII compilers (or make it special order) a few more got interested.
I expect it to continue.
There are companies (like mine) that can convert your s3/S32/34/36/38 code
(even baby/36) into native in a smart way, not just grinding it thru a converter that leaves even
stranger code on the other side, but that is a conversation to have off-list.
Plus some have posted old code on the RPG list and we can give you an
equivalent native (if there is an equivalent).
Jim Franz

----- Original Message ----- From: "Terrence Enger" <tenger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Application modernization & re-engineering (was: What should Isay to a *nix community?)

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 13:20 -0500, Mike wrote:

This I agree. We still have s/32 (is that right?) code on the box. I would
have to have someone walk me through even getting in the right environment
much less how to program for it, compile it, and hell just to run it.

It's been a while, but I think there is little difference among S/32,
S34, and S/36, both OCL and RPG, when it comes to porting the programs
to System i. Does anybody remember otherwise?

Cheers,
Terry.

--
Mike Wills
Midrange Programmer/Analyst

Sick of corporate radio and hungry for something new?
http://thenextgenerationofradio.com
Stalking me? http://twitter.com/MikeWills | http://friendfeed.com/mikewills


On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:14 AM, David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> One thing I would like to throw into the ring on this discussion is > this:
>
> Even though I fully ascribe to the maxim "If it ain't broke, don't fix > it"
> ... there are times that I do believe that an old application SHOULD be
> re-engineered even though it is still working.
>
> With the advent of the more modern languages (RPG included), the effort
> required to MAINTAIN some of those old applications can become > excessively
> burdensome as to be 'broken' even though they function perfectly.
>
> If an application requires sufficient modification ... a complete > rework
> _SHOULD_ be considered so long as the benefit of rewriting it rather > than
> trying to implement the heavy modifications (which would might make it
> harder to maintain in the future).
>
> david
> (writing from N53 20/W5 39)
>
> --
> IBM i on Power -- For when you can't afford to be out of business.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

--
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.