RPG and Programming

I have been reading and thinking about the future of my favored programming language and the computer platform upon which I use it. The latter has been the subject of an extended discussion in LinkedIn. Some feel that the naming of the machine is of little consequence, unless you use the wrong one. It is felt that to call it the AS/400 is inaccurate, since the AS/400 is not called that anymore- which is, of course, true. It is felt that RPG will not survive for an extended period of time because of its intimate connection via DDS (Data Description Specifications) with the 24 X 80 character display green-screen terminal. Others feel that newer innovations may allow it to survive, but only if it dispenses as quickly as possible with the fixed-format (“punch-card”) calculation specifications and move quickly to free-format. There are not many defenders of fixed-format RPG around, and those that use it are probably expected to turn in their coding sheets soon and retire. And, as always, proponents of each view have their own facts and anecdotes to support their view.

I could not hope to make much of an impression on that forum and accomplish anything more than stir up the pot of contention. It is much better to make a one-sided argument here. Anyone who cares to argue may feel free to do so. (more…)

I have changed my mind again on this matter of using the RPGIII style of calling external programs instead of subprocedures, modules, service programs and all that sort of stuff. I am beginning to “see the light” about updating my coding style.

I don’t know why, but just out of the blue I started to mess around with the service program concept. I must have 15 or 20 variations on date conversion routines: GTOJ for MMDDYY to Julian, ISOTODOW for inputting an ISO date (CCYYMMDD) and outputting the day of the week, and ISOTOVBG for inputting ISO and outputting a spelled-out date (in the format September 30, 2010) are just a few of them. Somehow I guess I felt that there was a natural grouping evident there that ought to be respected.

So anyway, I began exploring service programs a bit more. I think my main objection to modules was the fact that compilation would be a three-step process- compiling the two modules separately with CRTRPGMOD, then using CRTPGM to create the final program. I considered this to be an incredible nuisance. But I pressed on and put all my date modules into one service program. I then discovered that there was a way in the header specifications to use a “binding directory” to join the main program to modules. I found out how to put service programs into a binding directory, then reference the modules from there.

The final step was freeing myself from a misconception about the use of service programs. The article I was using for reference only referred to the use of CRTPGM. I found, though, that once the binding directory reference was inserted into the H spec, I could use CRTBNDRPG, just like I always do, so it could be a one-step compilation again. This was important beyond simple ease of use, because a number of other programs I had written, including my file/program cross-reference system, provided for recompilation of programs when requested. Before, the few programs that had external subprocedures always bombed on the CRTBNDRPG compile, and I could think of no easy way to create the proper CRTRPGMOD/CRTPGM combinations automatically. That is partly why I had retained the old CALL/PARM syntax, so I would not have to deal with that issue. Now, my problem has been solved.

So maybe there is hope for me yet.

It has been a long time since my last entry. Much has happened since then. I made two 2100 mile round trips by car back to Michigan, both of them in connection with my mother, who passed away in June at the age of 98. Other personal situations have cropped up too.

At my place of work, I continue attempting to gradually upgrade the system. In addition to my assigned projects and troubleshooting, I am attempting to use more modern techniques; but I find it interesting to look back and see what things I have tried and not tried to do.

One thing that comes to mind is that I am no longer determined to find a way to gradually move code to free-format. If I write new code, it will probably be in RPG-free; but I am no longer attempting to translate fixed format to free. The job is just too daunting; so many of the old programs are just hideously loaded with indicators, and to do a direct conversion, using Linoma’s RPG Toolbox, creates code that would, especially to a neophyte, be even more confusing than its fixed format parent. With proper use of the toolbox we can eliminate left-hand indicators while leaving it in fixed format, and the tool does a very nice job of cleaning things up.

In another context, I am making changes that effectively are advancing beyond RPGIV as presently constituted. Using IBM routines CEESCEN, CEEDAYS, and CEEDATE, I am trying to free the system from its self-imposed reliance upon a century that runs from 1961-2060 for 2-digit years, as well as the ILE RPG range of 1940-2039 for 2-digit years. The boldest move, of course, would be to change all date references in the data files to at least an 8-digit year, if not actual date formats; but in ancient code from multiple systems, that would take a prohibitive amount of time to convert hundreds of files and programs to do this. What I have done instead is create a number of programs based upon the IBM programs above to quickly do date conversions. In doing this, I am implementing a sliding century, such that the two-digit dates will always reference a century that references the current year as the 40^th year of the century. Currently, this means that my floating century is 1971-2070. In ten years, it will be 1981-2080.

A typical call would be: To convert Gregorian (MMDDYY) to Julian, we would call:

CALL ‘GTOJ’

PARM ING 6 0

PARM JUL 5 0

You may note that I am using the RPGIII/RPG400 style of calling the program rather than using the one-line form: CALLP(ING:JUL), which involves the creation of appropriate prototypes. The program GTOJ, for instance, does consist of a module DCONV, which sets up and runs the IBM routines, and module GTOJ, which sets up the input and output for DCONV. They are then combined into program GTOJ. All the routines ultimately use DCONV.

However, I could not see the point of the extensive housekeeping involved in making the programs that call GTOJ and the other programs modularized. You, of course, have to create prototypes for each of the programs (about 15 of them, at last count). Of course, I could put them all in one service program, which to my mind creates another layer of unnecessary complexity. The chief justifications for this seem to be performance and the ability to catch inconsistencies between parameters of the called and calling programs. To me, these are not sufficient reasons. In this installation, performance will never be an issue. Trust me. Our new machine (stupid word processor! I can’t put our favorite machine’s name here – OpenOffice keeps trying to capitalize it) runs at least 10 times as fast as the one it replaced. As for parameter checking, any errors last until the first test is run, after which they are corrected.

Another thing that I have cooled on is attempting to get away from MOVE, etc , in existing code. New code that I write contains very few MOVEs, except for enabling date arithmetic. I just don’t see the point in changing existing code to remove MOVE, unless by doing so I can make the code clearer. IBM has not implemented MOVE in freeform, so I don’t see a meaningful amount of existing RPG code being moved to freeform. This means that any RPG neophyte is going to have to learn to deal with both freeform and fixed RPG formats in his maintenance programming.

So time marches on. We continue to watch the progress of IBM with its initiatives regarding RPG, and we wait to see what impact it will have on our day-to-day work. In a small installation like ours, I don’t think we will ever be cutting edge.

In an alternative universe:
IBM Toronto
Press Release
April 1, 2010
RPG, from its very inception, has been designed to be an easy to use programming language. Since business data is stored in files, RPG was designed to make reading and writing files easy. To that end, its creators made sure that the processing of files was made easy by its READ and READE and READP operation codes, using a Pascal-like DO loop. Doing subtotals has been accomplished by the programmer storing intermediate data in temporary user-defined fields, then comparing group identifiers with the new identifiers and outputting the results before proceeding. Proper cascading logic enables the user to track multiple group changes that may need to be done at the same time. CHAIN and READ make it possible to easily link related files. (more…)

My recent experience on the forum on Bob Cozzi’s RPGIV website underlined the fact that I am not in contention for the title of “World’s Best RPG Programmer”. I posed a question that involved the use of APIs and prototypes, and I submitted my sample code. I got my question answered, but not before it was made very clear to me that my abilities as to APIs and prototyping were considerably below cutting edge.

How do you get to be a good programmer? You have to be intelligent, which can mean you have to know when to be as stupid as the computer. You have to be intolerant of errors. And you have to be willing to learn from your mistakes, as you will make thousands of them.

But beyond these basic qualities and attitudes, other circumstances may determine how deeply you will get into the more arcane aspects of your chosen programming language that will allow you to be among the “best”.

For one thing, your circumstances have to be such that you are exposed to advanced programming techniques. This will likely also be a function of your intellectual curiosity. But perhaps just as importantly, your circumstances have to be such that you will actually have a need for these techniques. You may never be in a position where you will need to access user spaces. While you may see some benefit to variable length fields, you may not see any burning need to start using them. And while much of the benefit of ILE is built around things like APIs and prototypes, it may well occur that your site simply does not need a wholesale conversion of code to make use of called procedures.

As it happened, my experience above came as a result of a need for them. Two-digit years are still used on my system. In calculating the maturity date of a 30-year loan written in 2010, I bumped up against the ILE default for two-digit date fields (1940 to 2039) and got an “invalid date” error when I attempted to generate 3/15/40 to represent 2040. To get around this, I decide to use an API I was aware of, CEESCEN, which allows you to float the 100 year range you want to use for the 100-year period in question. This is used in association with APIs CEEDAYS and CEEDATE to allow you to format dates in numerous different formats. (Google the API names for details.)

However, I was not familiar with how to set up the prototypes needed, and as a result I made some stupid mistakes that leaped out at the knowledgeable participants in the forum, especially Bob. But anyway, with some help, I got the prototypes and program calls to work.

But my learning things like these are in response to a specific need. I don’t have a burning need to learn all or even a substantial portion of the APIs available. I simply don’t need them. The fact is that I am getting paid to write production code, not specifically to “learn new things” . And the fact is also that I am not in a position where I can spend a lot of time outside the workplace learning new stuff, since family and other personal needs and circumstances have first claim on my time.

Other people, by reason of education, career choices, and the employers they happened to have, may have had open to them early in their careers opportunities to work on truly advanced concepts that I never was exposed to and likely never will be. Of course, their being smarter than me, not to mention better educated early on, would also make this more likely My task being to maintain and upgrade code that was from the 1980’s and 1990’s in style, if not always in vintage, I will likely be kept busy doing that for the balance of my career. I like to think I’m good, but I’ll never be the best.

But sometimes, to old codgers like me, it’s difficult to know just how far to go. In previous posts I have written about my vaguely negative feelings about freeform RPG, and I have written very clearly about how I feel about IBM’s unwillingness to implement the MOVE instruction in freeform RPG, pointing out how this can only hinder conversion of old code and diminish acceptance of the new RPG dialect.

Case in point, a program I was working on today. I was writing code to implement formatting of a six-digit account number based upon the rightmost 6 digits of an 11-digit number. It was based upon some old code (the usual situation where I work), but the old code was hideous. The old program consisted of about 15 lines of MOVE and MOVEL statements. I said, this has got to go.

So I contemplated the best way to do it. I could set up a data structure and put pieces of the account number into that, using EVALs or MOVEs,with dashes embedded as needed. But that didn’t seem quite elegant enough. I have been working harder to modernize my own code, so I finally broke it down to these two possibilities, as illustrated in this test program. The result I am aiming for is the number formatted as 01-234-5.

     H DFTACTGRP(*NO)   ACTGRP(*CALLER)
     D BACTNO          S             11  0 INZ(99999012345)
     D ACC6            S              8    INZ(*BLANKS)
     D NUM6            S              6  0 INZ(0)
     D ACCW            C                   '0  -   - '
     C/FREE
       EVALR ACC6 = %EDITW(%DEC(%SUBST(%EDITC(BACTNO:'X'):6:6):6:0):ACCW);
      /END-FREE
     C                   MOVE      BACTNO        NUM6
     C                   EVALR     ACC6 = %EDITW(NUM6:ACCW)
     C                   EVAL      *INLR= *ON

One way mixes the old and the new, with an old-fashioned MOVE to the smaller field, followed by a new-fangled %EDITW BIF using a predefined edit word. The other goes full-bore new age, with one grand set of embedded functions. To get the 11 digit number in string form so I can substring it, I use %EDITC with an X edit code, which does the conversion. Next, I %SUBST (substring) the last six characters. I then use %DEC to convert those six characters back to numeric. Finally, I apply the %EDITW function to format those six digits as desired. (I would be interested in finding out about a shorter way to do it.)

But I have a problem with it. In an earlier post, I pointed out that the ability to create long, complex functions in freeform is not necessarily a virtue. The mere fact that I felt the need to explain it here indicates that I am not comfortable with it. The code is short, but I do not feel that it is clear. On the other hand, while the the two-line version using MOVE is short and sweet, and uses a BIF, it would force me to get out of freeform to use the MOVE; stylistically, that also seems wanting.

Since the thrust of my thinking is in trying to modernize the code so future generations of converted C programmers won’t be freaked out by the C in column 6, I am leaning toward the one-line version. But I don’t like it. It’s ugly.

I was going to discourse on another topic, but a response to Buck (to whom I apologize, along with Bill, for being derelict in checking my site’s e-mail), who commented on my previous post, demands a reply. He feels that lack of formal education, while being a contributing factor, is only a contributing factor; rather, it is the midrange habit of being exposed to one programming language.

Actually, I am inclined to agree. The isolation in RPG is real. But we also do well to consider the background of the situation. The earliest IBM minicomputers, the System/3, had as its programming language RPG II. That was it. Small businesses who wanted that computer worked in that language- at least, I’m not aware of others used on the machine, besides assembler.

When the System/34 came out in 1977, the choice of compilers widened. BASIC, COBOL, and Fortran became available. But still, RPG dominated. I’m not surprised that Fortran and BASIC popularity did not rise. But COBOL was big at the time. However, RPG was already a business-oriented language, so COBOL was not really needed from that standpoint, and RPG was perhaps felt to be more terse and easier to learn. Then too, COBOL programmers were already being kept busy keeping the IBM mainframes humming, so there were probably not an excess of them floating around. COBOL has never been much more than a peripheral language on the IBM midrange; useful probably only to those whose business already depended in some way on COBOL, perhaps having COBOL talent already available.

In addition, and perhaps most important of all, The System/34 had no need to talk to the outside world unless it were to another IBM minicomputer or mainframe. There was no need to handle HTML; there was no HTML, because there was no Internet.

This is not to say that RPG was a perfect language. String manipulation beyond the realm of MOVE and MOVEL was very difficult. The two things the designers never got right until RPGIV came along were string manipulation and date arithmetic- being able to get the date 30 days after today, for instance. (One thing I will never comprehend is why they have never been able to enable multiple dimension arrays. In earlier days in a different environment, trying to emulate multiple dimension arrays was a real pain.)

But since the programmers had no other languages to work with, they bent RPG to their will. They created these plug-ugly array- manipulation routines to piece together strings. And they created complex routines to do date addition and date format conversion. We must not forget the famous “magic numbers” - to convert a date in month-day-year for mat to year-month-day, for instance:

MMDDYY MULT 10000.01 YYMMDD. I am still reminded of the RPG programmer of my acquaintance who, with the help of engineers, created sines and cosines and other functions in RPGII.

Now, there may have been elegant functions created in C for such purposes as string manipulation and mathematical functions. But once RPG routines were developed, the C functions were not needed. It really didn’t matter. They couldn’t use C anyway. If you knew what you were doing, you could write assembler subroutines – but that was it. I don’t think RPG couldn’t even call COBOL programs; at least the techniques were not well known for doing so.

So when ILE came around, much of the motivation for calling the now-available C routines was missing. We didn’t need them. RPG routines were already doing the work. Unless there were some performance considerations, programming managers would probably take a dim view of programmers who ripped out the ugly-but-tried-and-true RPG routines just for their own amusement. One could make a valid argument that those routines were a maintenance nightmare. But unless management had a good deal of foresight, this might be a difficult thing to prove to management’s satisfaction.

And yes, programmer inertia was also a factor. My shop has had IBM midrange machines since the 1970’s, and AS/400s since the 90’s. But the first RPGIV program was written on this system in 2007, by me after I arrived.

But now, the IBM midrange does have to deal with the outside world. My company already has an Internet presence, and we quite frankly don’t have to know PHP or Java or the other languages in vogue in order to make the business work. All we have to do is make sure our Internet provider gets the necessary data. And RPGIV provides the necessary tools to alleviate some of the issues that plagued us with earlier versions of RPG. If we need outside routines like APIs or C or Java or Rexx, they are easy enough to call. I have expressed myself in earlier posts about my ambivalent feelings about freeform RPG.

But mentioning freeform brings us to the topic of: How do our employers find replacements for us fixed-format loving old codgers when we retire? That is a topic for another time.

I have been thinking a bit about how our backgrounds, educational and otherwise, may determine at least to some extent the style we use in our programming and indeed perhaps the language we use.

One of my fellow programmers (about my age) graduated from college with a background in computers. Almost immediately he was able to find a position programming in COBOL, then in ALGOL, which is a block-structured language with a relatively free format. He continued to do well at various positions; ultimately, he came to where I work, with many years of experience in programming, but none in RPG. The style here could be described as a blend of RPGII, RPGIII, and RPG/400; fixed format to the core, loaded with indicators. He learned RPG from the ground up in that environment. Sometime after I came along, he was shown freeform RPG.

I, on the other hand learned RPGII from a book and practical experience. I had no computer background when I started to learn. I was of an inquisitive spirit, though, and I advanced in my use of RPG as the language itself improved. I too ultimately became acquainted with freeform RPG.

Now, who do you think uses freeform RPG whenever he can, especially on new programs? You might have guessed it was my partner- if you did, you’d be right. RPG was actually stifling to him; given the freedom to use free format RPG along with the BIFs that work well with it, he has been liberated. On the other hand, as you may judge from this blog, I just have not seen the light or the point. When I write code for new programs, it is in fixed format RPGIV.

We learned to love the way we learned programming, and so our preference now is to do it the way have always learned it, just better.

Illustrating the point that the way we learn to program is greatly influenced by our programming origins was a discussion I just read on an RPG forum about the significance of certain characters when writing CL (Control Language on the AS/400). Instead of indicating a “not equal” test by the common expression *NE, the code used the combination ^=, where the ^ is really a character I can’t find on my keyboard, but looks like the upper-right-hand corner of a rectangle with the top leg longer than the right. The character, as it turns out, is the “logical not”, a character often used in Boolean algebra.

Now, I don’t know who originated that code. Some experienced programmers, though, just did not know what it meant. Therein may lie a tale.

During the time I learned, many if not most of my fellow programmers were not products of any kind of computer science curriculum. They did not learn BASIC or Fortran first, and usually not COBOL, though this was a bit more common. They learned RPG as their first language. They did not learn “computer science concepts”; many, like me, either never attended college or did so only briefly. They may have started as a computer operator, or maybe at another position in their company. Usually it was a small company; it had the smallest capacity IBM computer available, the System/3, or System/32, or System/34. Something about the programming process intrigued or excited them; they persevered, and they advanced.

As time went on, though, and RPG increased in importance, people with a background in computers and computer science began to program RPG. For a long time, they would prove to be stifled if they expected to program like they originally learned to program in other languages. And where the original programmers may have simply accepted, for example, the RPG cycle, and comprehended it entirely, by the time the System/38 came around, programmers who started learning RPG as RPGIII on the System/38 evidently found it mind-boggling.

I can’t count the number of times I have found a test for LR (last record) in the RPG detail cycle in code (usually written by programmers who came from the 38) using an input or update primary file. Unless explicitly set on with a SETON instruction, the LR indicator will never be on during the detail cycle. A programmer who started with RPG II would automatically know this – it would be a part of his upbringing. A programmer who started with a background in computers later would not necessarily know this. This would cause problems if the programmer intended to base output on this indicator test. Usually it would mean that last record calculations and total output would be missing.

Another difference in outlook comes with file processing. A programmer raised on RPGII (usually in a small shop) doesn’t mind the system reading files (primary and secondary) without him telling it to. But I have noticed in discussion forums that people raised on other programming languages (usually learned in college) seem to get bent out of shape if they don’t explicitly get to do the file reading themselves. They don’t really comprehend that this really is quite an advanced feature, much closer to SQL than Pascal.

It would be interesting to find a survey of programmers that told what level of education they had when they first started programming professionally. I would suspect that as a group, RPG programmers would have a slightly lower level of educational advancement than, say, a C or Java programmer. This would especially be true if they surveyed the most experienced RPG programmers. But then, it is results that matter. RPG programmers do not write compilers – we process information so that humans may comprehend it.

From time to time I read that the language we speak to some extent controls the way we think. Someone more versed in such things may be able to describe how this is true with natural languages, but I have found this to be especially true with computer languages. A recent chunk of code I came across while working on a program at my place illustrates this point.

The point of the routine is to add a particular quantity to a total a number of times defined by a variable field.

Now, to most modern programmers, this is a trivial task. A classic DO loop will do the trick quite nicely. But this code was not written in a modern language. It was written in RPGII, which didn’t have  DO and END opcodes to use.

But first, we will render how the code, as it appeared in the program, could have been coded using DO:
(The field names have been changed. The number of times the quantity would be added is NOTMES; the quantity to be added is TOTQTY; the quantity TOTQTY is to be added to is GDTOT.)

     C                       IF        *IN03=*ON AND *IN49=*OFF
     C                       DO        NOTMES
     C  TOTQTY               ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT
     C                       ENDDO
     C                       ENDIF
     

Now, you read above that it was written in RPGII. Here is how it could have been rendered in RPGII:

     C  N03
     COR 49                      GOTO      EIF001
     C                           Z-ADD     0             X
     C        LUP001             TAG
     C        X                  ADD       1             X
     C*  25 SET ON IF X<=NOTMES
     C        X                  COMP      NOTMES                  2525       <=
     C   25   TOTQTY             ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT
     C   25                      GOTO      LUP001
     C        EIF001             TAG                

But this is not even nearly how the code was written.
In early RPG, apparently programmers were apparently taught to use an indicator to test for every possible condition- a different one for every condition. And, apparently, the concept of a loop did not occur to this programmer. The value of NOTMES could be as high as 5, so, by George, we must test for every value from 1 to 5, and deal with them accordingly. When I dug into the code and got to comprehend what it was doing. I was absolutely stunned. What follows is the code as translated into RPGIV, so the number of lines would be slightly more than in the original code; but the old code looked just as bad:

     C     TOTQTY        ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT
     C  N49NOTMES        COMP      2                                      75
     C  N49NOTMES        COMP      3                                      76
     C  N49NOTMES        COMP      4                                      20
     C  N49NOTMES        COMP      5                                      05
     C*  IN RPGII, NEXT CALC WOULD TAKE 4 LINES
     C   03
     CANN49
     CAN 05
     COR 03
     CANN49
     CAN 20
     COR 03
     CANN49
     CAN 76
     COR 03
     CANN49
     CAN 75TOTQTY        ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT
     C*  IN RPGII, NEXT CALC WOULD TAKE 3 LINES
     C   03
     CANN49
     CAN 05
     COR 03
     CANN49
     CAN 20
     COR 03
     CANN49
     CAN 76TOTQTY        ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT
     C*   IN RPGII, NEXT CALC WOULD TAKE 2 LINES
     C   03
     CANN49
     CAN 20
     COR 03
     CANN49
     CAN 05TOTQTY        ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT
     C   03
     CANN49
     CAN 05TOTQTY        ADD       GDTOT         GDTOT

I’m sorry, but I’m afraid but I don’t have any profound insights as to how that monstrosity could have been avoided; but in a weird way it gets the job done. There is a certain strange creativity about it. The logic is:
1. Add the quantity once.
2. If it needs to be added 2,3,4, or 5 times, add it again.
3. If it needs to be added 3,4, or 5 times, add it again.
4. If it needs to be added 4 or 5 times, do it again.
5. If it needs to be added 5 times, add it again.

The most basic Computer Literacy class in middle school today would teach the better way, but such classes weren’t around then. And for those who learned that early, it’s probably the way they did it for the next thirty years.

Oh, my.