[Paul:]
RDI was tabled due to cost justification.
[Buck:]
If cost is a problem, have the developers turn off syntax checking in
SEU (F13) and let the compiler syntax check for them.
[Larry (DrFranken):]
Excellent. Lets see how THAT cost justification works out for them. :-)
[Buck:]
I didn't intend to be snarky. The midrange market has ever been cost
conscious and the vast majority of development groups use only the tools
that come with the OS.
I'm not sure Larry or anyone else interpreted your comment as snarky.
I mean, some certainly may have, but (a) I certainly didn't, and (b) I
think Larry's response would have been the same regardless of whether
he thought you were trying to be snarky.
Ultimately, the suggestion to turn off SEU syntax checking is
completely practical. It will either improve the usability to an
acceptable level, or it will serve as additional incentive to push for
RDi.
If it were possible to take a poll on the software used to develop RPG
applications, I think the results would look something like this:
SEU 80%
POP 13%
RDi 7%
I don't even know what POP is, but I definitely concur that SEU users
might easily outnumber RDi users 11:1. Obviously, a poll of the folks
on this list would most likely not be representative of the entire
midrange community.
Midrange programmers like SEU. If they want to keep using SEU, their
lives will be easier if they turn syntax checking off.
Not only that, one has to imagine that most SEU users, especially
those who are *happy* with SEU, probably don't use features that are
not covered by the existing SEU syntax checking. (I'm speaking in
general terms, of course. The OP has already stated that the frozen
syntax checking is becoming an issue at his shop.)
I fear that freezing SEU syntax checking will probably serve mainly as
a deterrent to using new RPG features rather than as an incentive to
move to RDi.
Midrange programmers didn't adopt the GUI IDE even when
it was bundled with the compilers.
While this is often used as evidence of low demand (and as
justification for the extra charge for RDi), I find any conclusions
derived from this particular fact kind of suspect. (1) The IDE at
that time was pretty crappy, judging by what I've read. It was either
not easy to use, or it was too slow on the PCs most folks had back
then. (2) It was definitely not promoted well enough. I mean, think
of how few people know the proper naming for the midrange platform
itself. I'd guess far fewer even know that a GUI IDE exists, let
alone what it's called. (And Jon Paris amply demonstrated that the
naming of the IDE underwent changes comparable to the naming of the
midrange platform.)
It's my opinion (and worth every penny you paid for it) that management
declines to spend the money on RDi because the demand is very weak. If
the entire staff walked into the boss' office and said that they need
RDi, I think management would be much more likely to cut the check.
I don't disagree with any of that, but my (equally valuable) opinion
is that now would be a good time for IBM/Rational to revisit both
pricing and promotion for RDi. People these days have more powerful
PCs, the underlying Eclipse engine has (from what I gather) also
improved during these intervening years, and Java itself (which runs
Eclipse) has also improved. So it's probably much easier for RDi to
make a case for itself today than WDSC did back when it was bundled at
no extra cost. But people have to know it exists first.
When I say pricing should be revisited, what I mean is that IBM should
seriously consider bundling RDi with the compilers, and charge more
for the compilers.
John Y.
midrange.com
