Re: AS/400

Lou


> At 8:58 AM -0500 7/29/01, Joe Pluta wrote:
> >I'm confused.  I've just explained how you can completely avoid the
> >interactive tax while at the same time making your applications powerful and
> >flexible, yet you're still using that old, out-of-date "governor" argument
> >as your decision to move to a less reliable, less secure alternative.  It
> >seems like you're dead set on moving regardless of what solution you get, so
> >why pretend like you want an answer that include the iSeries?
>
>     Perhaps.  But your method seems more like telling the driver of
> his hypothetical car that he *can* go 150 MPH if he needs to.  All he
> has to do is sit in the seat upside-down, work the gas and brake with
> his hands and steer with his feet.  Oh, and drill a hole in the
> floorboard so he can see where he is going.

I don't follow this analogy at all.  Joe seems to be offering virtually an all
win solution ( although I haven't tried it).  A better analogy might be that he
is offering you a new smart up-to-date body shell for your existing chassis and
engine which can be in two instantly switchable styles, 5250 (sedan) or GUI
(coupé), and you avoid paying the tax on your existing bodyshell.  Sounds good 
to
me.  Doesn't seem upside down nor, from looking at Joe's web site, do the 
changes
seem very difficult to implement.

>     Why bother?   What's the advantage of changing tons of code by
> applying a technique, probably at great cost, whose design is
> unusable on any other platform and is not the standard even on its
> own platform?

I imagine that the cost would be a fraction of that of moving platforms.  Joe's
technique involves separating UI logic from business logic.  This is something I
always do on the AS/400. Are you saying that this is not possible on other
platforms?  If so why would you want to leave the iSeries?  You know as well as
me that this idea is platform independent.  He also uses Java.  This is not
unique to the iSeries either.  Joe's ideas seem to use standard technology.

>     And finally, what's to stop IBM from making a change in the next
> release of CFINT to close the performance loophole exploited by this
> technique?  As long as CFINT exists in its present form, the
> "governor argument" is not out of date, but a real factor.

I disapprove strongly of the interactive charge.  But you have to consider it as
part of the total cost of ownership or use a technique like Joe's to avoid it.

It seems that me that you have made up your mind and you are now trying to
justify your decision to us. We are not your peers.  I get the impression from
your web site that you run your own AS/400 software house.  If so, you need to
justify the decision to yourself. Perhaps this is your problem - you cannot.

Best wishes

Rob
________________________________________________________

Erros plc

44 (0) 1844 239 339

http://www.erros.co.uk - The AS/400 Neural Database for the Internet

_________________________________________________________


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---