So you want RPG to go OO?
This is essentially what you'll get if you allow procedure overloading and
namespaces. At least you'll have almost all the language construct to
make it happen. Coming from C/C++ in all my time in highschool and
college and then learning Java as well I'm quite fond of OO and really
miss it, so it wouldn't be so bad for me :D
I'm just wondering how the RPG lifers feel about this. Without a
background in an OO language I would think many RPGers would be a bit lost
with Namespaces and Procedure overloading... just as most have bucked the
idea of Modules/Service Progams. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I
very much support it, but I just hope everyone realizes that it'll be
another one of those 30% adoption situations again (or whatever the case
is for service programs).
Thanks
Bryce Martin
Programmer/Analyst I
570-546-4777
Larry Ducie <larry_ducie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
01/12/2010 06:34 AM
Please respond to
RPG programming on the IBM i / System i <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
RPG400 <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: RPGV?
Hi Hans,
My two cents on this:
The DCL keyword: This would make my RPG look like CL. That alone would
kill it for me.
Comma vs Colon: Only a proctologist would really care.
Calc Spec V: Already free so we just lose the /free and /end-free and make
it compulsory.
At this point in time I really don't think I would want my $100 spent on
freeing RPG. It is functionality I want, not lipstick.
I would spend my money on:
1) Overloading sub-procedures ($75)
This is an obvious need and is well overdue.
2) Namespaces for Service Programs and Modules ($20)
I would like to have a NAMESPACE keyword (H-spec) for a SRVPGM or MODULE
and then qualify a procedure with that namespace. This would allow me to
reference two service programs that export a similarly named subprocedure
and not have conflicts.
For example, two SRVPGMS export a getName procedure. This conflict is
solved with the following two lines:
NAMESPACE(MYSRVPGM1 : 'Contact')
NAMESPACE(MYSRVPGM2 : 'Customer')
I could then have:
contactName = Contact::GetName(parm);
customerName = Customer::GetName(parm);
We REALLY need this. We use so many SRVPGMS and it just gets harder and
harder to keep procedure names unique across our SRVPGMs. We simply
shouldn't have to.
3) Ability to put a Binding Directory into another Binding Directory ($5)
We have lots of Service Programs, and we generate quite complex
inter-dependencies. For our prototype copybooks we can copy our prototypes
into other copybooks to form new (more complex) copybooks. Unfortunately,
we can't do the same with our Binding Directories. This is a real pain.
Example:
A Person 'object' is implemented in three SRVPGMS. Each has its own
copybook and Binding Direcory. To include the Person objects in a program
we use a /include of the PERSON copybook (which includes a /include of the
three SRVPGM copybooks). We also reference the PERSON Binding Directory.
This doesn't reference the theee original Binding Directories (because it
can't) so it has to list the three SRVPGM objects again. If we split one
of the original SRVPGMS into two we would have issues. The copybook is
easy because we reference the two new copybooks in the original and all
copybooks built on it would get the new values. However, ALL of the
Binding Directories that list the original SRVPGM have to be found and
amended. This could be solved by simply amending the original Binding
Directory to include a refenrece to the two new Binding Directories and
letting all references filter through. Just want to keep it consistent.
Hope that all makes sense, and Happy New Year!
Cheers
Larry Ducie
_________________________________________________________________
View photos of singles in your area! Browse profiles for FREE
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/
midrange.com
