Re: why rpg and not cobol -- RPG400-L

Subject: Re: why rpg and not cobol
From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:29:14 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l>
List-help: <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: "RPG programming on the IBM i \(AS/400 and iSeries\)" <rpg400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:rpg400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l>, <mailto:rpg400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I am not going to support or refute the main thrust of this post, but
I would like to just address one factual point:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Stone, Joel <Joel.Stone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Functions: with RPG one can create their own functions. COBOL
doesn't offer this, which is 100 nails in its coffin.

Actually, the COBOL 2002 standard does stipulate user-defined
functions. Some may say it's pretty late to the party, but proper
functions didn't make it into RPG until pretty late also, from a C or
Pascal point of view. And COBOL 2002 also includes object-oriented
support in the form of classes (roughly like Java), which as far as I
know has yet to make it into RPG.

John

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.