I find it interesting that different report languages that I've
dealt with have a very interesting operational methodology that
reminds me very much of the fixed logic cycle of RPG/RPGII.
Regards,
Steve Thompson
On 01/22/2018 01:43 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
I did not say we should use RPGII for a parser. I just think it's
still a good choice for 'some' situations, like plain report
writing. (Read the statement I quoted.)
FYI, I provide support for a large zOS customer that still runs a
lot of RPGII.
Some interesting facts on RPGII.
1) The product is owned by the same people in Germany that own
VSE and zLinux. It is not owned by the language group in Perth.
2) The latest real APAR was back in the 80's. There was a
paper-only APAR in the 90's for Y2K describing how to call the
date window routine from RPGII, but that is not a 'real' APAR.
Personally, I would consider RPGII to be one of the first real
4GL languages. It seems to meet the definition of a 4GL better
than the definition of a compiler.
Tony Thigpen
Charles Mills wrote on 01/22/2018 12:20 PM:
I'd like to see an XML parser written in RPG II.
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 9:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fair comparison C vs HLASM
> Both languages have their places, and there are also many
> situations where neither one is the best choice.
Long Live RPGII. :-)
Tony Thigpen
Gord Tomlin wrote on 01/22/2018 11:59 AM:
On 2018-01-22 10:44, Jon Perryman wrote:
I also commented that C is a weak language compared to HLASM
and gave
some examples that force bad coding techniques (e.g. XML
parser). A C
programmer took offence because he had written an efficient XML
parser in C.
Most programmers (whether C or Assembler) would not write
their own
XML parser. They would call a pre-existing parser. FWIW, in
the past,
I've done RYO parsing in both languages, and it was less work
for me
when I did it in C.
I'm not here to defend C. It certainly has its warts. But just
as it's
not good for C programmers to proclaim C to be better than
Assembler
in each and every case, it's not good for Assembler
programmers to do
the reverse. Both languages have their places, and there are
also many
situations where neither one is the best choice.
--
Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/
