|
Ring around, sounds like you are unpunctual, forwarded. (10)
So, when I was starting this out, the thought process was:
Circled was the ring, and it would go around the rest of the answer. That means that Circled should surround the other part of the answer. However, my mistake was dropping the l and e here.
So, with the rest of the answer, Circled would have gone around ulate. That pesky l/e was my blindspot here, if I had left it in, that would be Circlulateed.
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm surprised you got this because it was a one minute clue and I've just spotted a mistake in it.
|
|
|
|
|
I spotted the mistake and took a guess Pete - ulate and circ gave it away
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
A customer showed me their internal system yesterday.
It runs on an IBM AS/400 and it's written in IBM RPG.
RPG was originally developed in 1959, but the latest stable version is from 2020.
I must say it looks surprisingly modern: Coding in RPG IV - a beginner's tutorial[^]
Not sure if that's also the version of RPG that their software is programmed in, but I'm guessing it isn't as it's 40-something years old.
Other than that it looks like a fancy DOS program (colored letters on a white background, so no retro black/green, and completely keyboard driven, although mouse works too).
Apparently, they've been trying to replace it for 25 years, but without much success.
Meanwhile it's still actively being developed and their supplier has a development team just for this client (all other customers switched to the newer version of the product).
My client is now looking into buying the entire product just so they can keep using it 
They could buy the product, but the programmers are of course in no way obliged to move with the software.
My guess is they'll HAVE TO replace it in the coming ten years or so and it would be better to start working on a replacement NOW rather than buy something that's already obsolete.
But just out of curiosity, how many here worked on RPG and how many still do, could and/or want to?
|
|
|
|
|
I have worked for a short period on a IBM S/36 with RPG II some 30 odd years ago.
Forgot all about it besides the fact that it looked a lot like assembler and after checking your link doesn't even remotely resemble RPG IV.
After some 4 months I switched to the client side development which was done in Clipper 5 synchronising data with the S/36.
|
|
|
|
|
Loved Clipper - my first paying language
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
My dad won't shut up about how great Clipper was and that everything that came after it is just a rip off 
|
|
|
|
|
In Clippers early days it was largely used as a compiler for Ashton-Tate dbase - but it was so much more
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm especially fond of JRPG's 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm especially fond of JRPG's JSOP
Fixed that for you 
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to be almost as old as RPG to know who that is 
Haven't seen him around in ages, but then again, I'm not on here as much as I used to...
|
|
|
|
|
In 1998 a contractor came to our place of business to give a short course in RPG.
I must say I was impressed with how primitive it was.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: I must say I was impressed with how primitive it was.
I do not know RPG (except by name, for 40+ years), never programmed it, yet I am curious to your criteria for classifying RPG (or any other language as "primitive". Is it primarily because it is lacking certain features (if so: which features?) Or is it primarily for the way it is doing things?
I am curious to how well such evaluation criteria - in a language independent from - would classify the languages of today, and their early versions, as "primitive". Was the original strostrup C++ language "primitive"? Was C&R C? Did C# start out as a "primitive" language, but at some version had developed to "non-primitive" and maybe later to "advanced"?
I must admit that I think the last half dozen or so revisions of C++ and C# have brought "advanced" features that I'd rather be without!
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I called it primitive due to its syntax and grammar, because it didn't really have any.
This is what I recall from 1998:
The function calls, literals, and parameters were entered on a single line by their column positions.
For instance, a line that prints a file might look like the following:
PRN DATA K MQ
Where the parameters K, M and Q were codes for the options chosen and they must appear in their designated columns.
The K could have been the number of lines to print and the M could have been which report format to use and the Q could have been a modifier of some sort.
RPG was named for being a Report Generator language.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
modified 5 days ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: The function calls, literals, and parameters were entered on a single line by their column positions.
I guess I'd agree that this is sort of primitive 
(But note that a modern, graphical UI based programming, could have boasted the input of parameter in separate input fields, displayed in fixed positions, as one of its notable features ).
RPG was named for being a Report Generator language. From the days I knew it by name, that is what I know of it: A special purpose language, with requirements defined by this special purpose, not for its use as a general-purpose language.
The impression I get from the Wikipedia articles about RPG (in its various versions) is that IBM has been trying to force its application domain to be extended far beyond report generation, way beyond. Many languages have been ruined by that kind of thinking, having 'features' added that do not belong in that language.
One of fascinating things about dotNet (and similar virtual machine environments) is that it defines a platform where you can provide partial solutions in a multitude of languages: You use XAML for setting up user interfaces, C# for treating data input or output through these, LINQ for handling tabular data, you could in principle have dotNet modules handling array data in APL and string data in Snobol ... Generally speaking: You can create partial solutions in languages specifically tailored to that subproblem, rather than expanding your favorite language to handle every possible problem in the entire world, obviously at the expense of a tremendously complex language.
Looking at the development of modern languages, it seems as if I am on a collision course with most language developers. Noone seems to be saying "We'll leave that to a module in a report generator language", or "matrix processing language", or "string processing language". They all cry for extensions for doing everything in their "home language", rather than leaving some jobs to the specialists.
I am wishing for a programming language world where it is fair to say, "You can do this better than me". I am not holding my breath waiting for that to become reality.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
RPG IV is a modernized version of the original RPG, Report Program Generator.
I managed an AS/400 installation. Never programmed it but figured out how the language was designed.
The predecessors to the AS/400 were the IBM System/3, System/32, and System/34 computers. These were built to replace the much earlier accounting machines that used punched cards for input. These machines were programmed using a plugboard with wires connecting the various holes in the plugboard. ENIAC, anyone?
You had fixed positions on the punched cards for various data (operands). These data were read by the accounting machine, and the wires in the plugboard got the electrical impulses representing these operands. Necessarily, they corresponded to the fixed fields on the punched cards where those operands are positioned. The operator representing the operation to be performed — such as addition, subtraction, multiplication and division or printing — would be wired on the plugboard. As the card reader read in the punched cards, much clanging of the relays happened and the simple calculations of the accounting machine were accomplished. The System/3 replaced the electromechanical relays with electronic switching systems and the plugboard and wires with the RPG language designed to mimic them.
Then IBM introduced the System/38, the true predecessor (in terms of processor architecture) to the AS/400. For backward compatibility, IBM allowed the original primitive plugboard (wired program) programs to run on the System/38 and the AS/400 by providing the RPG compiler on these machines.
Hundreds if not thousands of various accounting systems software could now run on the AS/400. You are talking about the computer introduced in 1989 (the AS/400) running programs written for a computer introduced in the very early 1960s (the System/3) which was emulating a 1930s accounting machine (IBM 304)! Entire MRP (Manufacuring Requirements Planning) systems, the predecessor to the ERP systems of today, were created on the System/38 in RPG II, as those machines were suitable price wise, for the medium scale businesses.
These programs run perfectly on the AS/400 and many software vendors saw no reason to migrate them to C or C++ or even COBOL on the AS/400.
One company, BCPL, decided to rewrite their MRP system in modern C for the AS/400. After spending $400 million on the rewrite, which was around their annual revenue, they failed and went bankrupt.
The moral of the story is: let sleeping dogs lie and don’t attempt to convert these programs. They are extremely well-written by an earlier generation of programmers who were passionate about their jobs and ensured that the systems met the requirements of the day.
Oh, the days have changed and we need to change with the times?
That is precisely what led to the stranglehold Oracle and SAP have on the ERP market today.
modified 4 days ago.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to play as a Lawful Paladin.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer to be neutral chaotic adventurer  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I first read that as neurotic casual adventurer...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes is not that far...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always Chaotic Evil Sorcerer
|
|
|
|
|
last time I saw that was 1996. Interesting how much "old" code is still around and needing support.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
If by "support" you mean "active development" then yes 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
