M. Lazarus wrote:
I agree. There's no technical reason that IBM can't provide
a native GUI.
True. And a few years ago they published a direction statement saying
that they would look into it. But they studied it and decided against
it. Then they merged "i" and "p", and more RPG developers concluded
that IBM would probably never consider the native GUI idea again.
That's not my main reason for responding to this thread, though. My
main point is that RPG is extendable through service programs and if IBM
is not providing the type of interfaces you want, then you can write
your own. Some of us are doing that. Time is precious, of course. And
some may not have the time to build a native GUI interface. But some of
the resistance comes from attitude.
For all the "plumbing" that IBM has put into EGL, Joe is essentially
saying that EGL still needs extensions to RPG. Browsers need extensions
to RPG. And RPG needs extensions to RPG. My reason for responding is
to encourage developers to write extensions to RPG. IBM can't do
everything.
Nathan.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.
midrange.com
