RE: framework question

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)
> 
> I want to pick on the "...and flexibly..." in that sentence.  I have
> wondered for some time why Java couldn't be used for business logic if
you
> used it in the same capacity as RPG ILE would allow you.  Basically
you
> could translate that sentence to say "Couldn't you just write
procedural
> modular Java?".  People too often assume that when you go Java that
you
> have
> to develop everything to a purists OO standards, and that just isn't
the
> case (as I know from coding my first years worth of Java :-)

Nigel and Marc are talking about OO Java, with special focus on
inheritance.  It is my firm conviction that in most cases inheritance is
the wrong tool to use when building business objects.

You're running off in another direction.  Sure, you could use procedural
Java.  But WHY?!?!?!  "Procedural modular Java" is equivalent to
"interpreted RPG that doesn't have native support for decimal
arithmetic".  In what world is this a good idea?


> My view on Java would be that you should use it where it works good
for
> you;
> and the only way you are going to find that out is by trying it in
> different
> scenarios. 

Which I have, probably more than most people.  I've written more RPG
than a good percentage of RPG programmers and more Java than a lot of
Java programmers, and I may have written more of both combined than just
about anyone.  So I think that probably gives me a right to an opinion.


> I don't see why Java couldn't be good at business logic, but
> in
> the same breath, I have only developed a handful of JavaBeans that do
so.
> Most of my Java work is communications layer stuff because Java was
the
> obvious answer in that arena.

Try it.  You won't like it.

Especially try doing some hard calculations.  For example, try to write
some good old WIP materials costing, making sure not to lose any
fractions of pennies along the way.  Or triangular currency conversions.
You'll go blind.

Joe