Hi Jon
Looking at it another way, there's also the question of giving people what
they want versus what's "good for them". Had a native GUI - with native RPG
opcodes - been provided, the take-up on the newer language features may have
been much different. Sadly we will never know just what might have been.
Although I don't disagree with the idea that people could have taken more
advantage of what is there now, letting IBM off hook for not providing a GUI
because the community didn't massively adopt RPG IV or whatever doesn't
wash.
What do we/did we really need more - better language features or the ability
to quickly deliver what the market demands ?
IBM: "Eat your broccoli (ILE) it's good for you ! Then - maybe - we'll think
about dessert (GUI)"
Regards
Evan Harris
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon Paris
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2009 12:23 p.m.
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: what was the single mgmt decision made in mid-1990s. period
On 17-Feb-09, at 5:03 PM, midrange-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
We can and have shown IBM a long list of anecdotal evidence to
support our case for a native GUI. I don't understand why it hasn't
been implemented 10+ years ago!
Perhaps in part because so many i shops still don't use what they have
been given? There are still large numbers of shops with little or no
RPG IV - heck even major ISVs like Oracle (JDE) don't use it. Even
less use SQL. Same holds for Java and PHP.
I love the box - but I find it hard to blame IBM for everything when
as a community we don't use what we've got.
Jon Paris
www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
midrange.com
