Re: CL enhancements

** Reply to note from Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@ttec.com> Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:04:59

> -  Poor DDM performance.  Other methods require a lot more programming. 

So the choice is to go with a platform that does not have DDM? So, you have
to do the extra programming anyway, but you are better off with someone who
wouldn't bother to provide DDM in the first place?

>  
> -  Poor programming development tools. Adding the cost of Code/400 to 
> 100-150 developers @ $800 a pop wouldn't fly.  Even if it had been a 
> consideration, there's no way that they would have gone w/ OS/2.

Code/400 is not the only available solution. Nobody pays retail, by the
time you work the purchasing magic you can half that number. And, by the
way, that will be a lot cheaper than it would be to have 100-150 developers
developing code for NT. The licenses for the programming suites will
probably cost the same, but with Code/400 that includes the AS/400 based
controls which help to allow multiple developers to share the same code
without stepping on each others source.

And the Win32 bit version has been available for a year (or is it two?). I
sure can understand why a shop like this wouldn't go for OS/2, though.

Since they are ditching the AS/400s it is likely that you will be looking
for work, else I would be advising you to look around anyway. This company
obviously doesn't bother to check things out before making big decisions.

But here is something that makes me curious: Four years ago this company
could have sat down with a speadsheet and puzzled out that Code/400 could
save them 10-15 programmer-years annually. But this company would "never go
with OS/2." So, four years later they have tossed out 12.5 * 4 * $50,000 or
$2,500,000 in possible savings (or, more accurately, in increased
production). Now, you feel that they are willing to toss out the AS/400s
because CL hasn't seen any enhancements. 

Continuing with this curious situation, you have stated that the decision
makers tossed the box because they weren't seeing any improvements in the
product. Obviously the decision makers weren't listening to those of you
"in the know" because your list of complaints (from the decision makers,
right?) includes all things which IBM has addressed. 
ie, Y2K tools, we know that IBM has published some Y2K tools and that these
are designed to make up for the short sightedness of the application
developers. It isn't really IBM's fault that we were short sighted, but we
would have liked the tools faster, right? 
Client Access, it is just one of the available front ends, if we don't like
it we can ditch it. Even for another of IBM's products! PComm. 
Ease of GUIize. Well, Smalltalk, C++, Java, etc. Sure Java is a latecomer,
but Smalltalk and VRPG have been around from IBM for years, in addition to
VisualRPG from ASNA (I think). Plus of course (the choice my company made
for an interim solution) you can simply decide to GUI an AS/400 application
using a screen scaper like the Seagull product. These make keeping a green
screen and GUI version both up to date pretty easy. Not a permanent
solution, as I Java offers such a better future.
Internet tools, IBM has been a little slow here. Of course, you can use any
body's internet tools to create your site (Microsoft has some nice tools
you can use for creating your AS/400 web pages). 


I am sorry that your employer doesn't bother to investigate their buying
decisions. I would think that any project big enough to require 14 AS/400s
would also justify someone's time to actually look into the platforms
involved. I am not really sure what kind of ad that IBM could put together
to counter that. 


Chris Rehm
Mr.AS400@ibm.net

How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business?
Get an AS/400.
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@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
+---