RE: Our OO Verus Procdedural Discussions and New Forum

> From: Jim McLean
> 
> Everyone has deep rooted opinions as fas as what is the appropiate
> language/architecture in a give situation.

Yeah, but a lot of those opinions are wrong <grin>.

Seriously, there certain jobs for which a specific tool is best, and I'd
like this list to try and identify those things on a more empirical
basis than simply "OO vs. procedural".  Especially since a small but
growing contingent of Java programmers have introduced the very
confusing concept of "procedural Java".


> I really don't see how the
> dicussion of whether or not Java or RPG is best suited for a
particular
> problem fits in this list.  And if you think it does, then wouldn't it
> also fit into the RPG list?

I think it fits here because the RPG list isn't trying to find places
where RPG fits.  They already know.  This list serves two purposes: it
identifies which tasks on the iSeries are appropriate for Java and it
identifies how to make Java components work with other iSeries
components.  To do that effectively, it makes sense to identify where
Java is appropriate and where it is not.  I really don't see why this
bothers you so much.  But by all meaqns, please take up more bandwidth
by complaining about things which you think take up too much bandwidth
<grin>.


> So
> it's not a matter of IF either language can accomplish a given task,
but a
> matter of how well if can be accomplish with a given
language/architecure.
> It's been my experience that there is no scientific measure when
you're
> talking about these sort of things, it's all just opinion.

My experience has been exactly the opposite.  I worked as an ISV for a
lot of years, and time was spent specifically comparing various
approaches to see how they worked in the real world.  That sort of
testing seems to have gone out of vogue, and been replaced in some
people's minds by a blind faith to buzzwords.  The truth of THAT
statement is easily demonstrated by seeing how many people here are
willing to argue about which technique is best, and how few are willing
to actually do any testing.


> Joe, I for one am quite glad that you are going to take these circular
> discussions to some other format so that I won't be getting spammed :)

And we're not taking thee circular discussions, we're trying to set up a
test bed.  Unlike you, the industry seems to think benchmarks are
important, and I'd like to follow their lead.  If you think this is
spam, you have options to reduce it <smile>.

Joe