Re: IBM getting rid of RPG -- MIDRANGE-L

Rob,
Excp handling, esp when caused by a pgm error, has no good answer but it has to 
be dealt with. Hiding the halt msg from the user often makes the problem worse. 
The i/r/c/d option that the end user sees and can use to make the matter worse 
is bad, but not getting a chance to see info on the error when it occurs can be 
worse.


Chris,
If in your flood of words is the sentiment that ibm needs to make money, then I 
agree.

My point is that the cost of cfint is not $, but loss of simplicity, options 
and flexibility. The server models are not as good as they could be because 
interactive use is not allowed. In a competitive world, this limits the 
acceptance of our platform.

I think your response is to say that all the user has to do is pay the $ and 
then they can have all the interactive and batch env have to offer. My 
response: look at the nbrs. customers are not willing to pay the price.


Steve Richter



---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:07:40 -0700

>    All you seem to be doing is describing why the interactive CPW is worth
>more to you than batch CPW. Joe has described some of the solutions to point
>out that you are not at all restricted to using the environment you feel IBM
>has done such a good job on providing. But you keep pointing out that to you
>it is better.
>    Then in the end you complain that IBM wants to charge for it. For what
>other purpose will a vendor provide a solution?
>    All the things that you describe as reasons for your being "unable" to
>implement Joe's suggestions are things that are unavailable from other
>vendors. But it bothers you that IBM would charge for them.
>    IBM has not pumped up the price for doing what you want! Lucky guy! You
>can still do all those things for less this year than last! All IBM has done
>is started offering cheaper agreements for those who don't want to do the
>things you do.
>    I think you've done a great job of explaining why the services you use
>are worth more than the services used by others. I'm sure now you look at
>it, you can understand why IBM might charge more. Right?
>
>Chris Rehm
>javadisciple@earthlink.net
>If you believe that the best technology wins the
>marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Steve Richter" <srichter@AutoCoder.com>
>To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com>
>Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:39 AM
>Subject: Re: IBM getting rid of RPG
>
>
>> Rob,
>>
>> The Joe Pluta approach adds value/functionality to our platform.  That is
>a
>> good thing. And as he and you point out, there are solutions to each
>> situation I describe.  but there are also costs.
>>
>> Simplicity is one cost.
>>
>> I can use sda to create a simple menu, create commands that front some
>> report producing rpg pgms, add these commands to the menu, insert some
>> selective prompting to the commands and in little time I have something
>> functional and easy to use for the user.
>> To move this to the web, out of the reach of cfint, I have to scrap all of
>> this. Something that was simple and effective has to be replaced.  The web
>> solution, in my view, has to be just as simple.
>>
>> re wrkoutq, wrkwtr, wrksbmjob ...The possible loss of a common user
>> interface is another cost.
>>
>> If I can launch ops nav with parms that tell it to display a particular
>> outq, that would be an adequate alt to "wrkoutq outq(xxxx)".   Writing a
>> custom java script version of WrkOutq is a solution, but the cost is
>likely
>> to be the common user interface. Each web page version of WrkOutq will
>work
>> differently. End result: user confusion.
>>
>> ( There is also the $ cost of the custom approach. Writing the web version
>> of WrkJobq takes time = money. WrkOutq ??Outq(xxx) is free. )
>>
>> re exception handling.  consider a cl pgm. the default excp handler
>enables
>> cancel, ignore or retry of a failed stmt.  Enables you to investigate the
>> cause of the error, then retry or ignore the error so the pgm can continue
>> running. Very simple and effective. Any excp handling code you put in the
>> pgm actually interferes with this process. I welcome a technical
>discussion
>> of how to link the interactive web user with the excp messages of the
>batch
>> running pgm, but be prepared for a long discussion<g>.
>>
>> All these problems because ibm wants to play its cfint games.
>>
>> Steve Richter
>
>
>+---
>| 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
>+---
>
+---
| 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
+---