Re[2]: RPG, COBOL & JAVA

[jim_oberholtzer@xxxxxxx]

     Jim,  
     
     Your points are very well taken, however, smalltalk (one of the 
     aforementioned IBM technologies that went nowhere) did not have nearly 
     the easy learning curve, multi-vendor support, nor the volume of money 
     that is being dumped into JAVA.  The only wildcard in this game at 
     this point is the Microsoft lawsuit with the feds.  If the feds fold, 
     we may have some competing standards, however as much as powerbuilder 
     and some of the other tool makers (my company included) that can 
     produce web enabled applications would like it to be otherwise, the 
     JAVA jihad will not be stopped.  The only way Sun/IBM could mess this 
     up is to forget to continually enhance the language based on what we 
     in the field need.  (or make COBOL and/or RPG capable of the same 
     functions)
     
     Regarding RPG not being OO, true in the purest sense, however you can 
     produce object oriented systems if you engineer them correctly.  Will 
     they absolutely match the definition of an OO application, no, however 
     they can be very nearly OO.
     
     IMHO, subject to change to a better argument.
     
     JBO


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: RPG, COBOL & JAVA 
Author:  <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> at Tcpgate
Date:    12/7/98 1:37 PM


I'm sorry, but I couldn't let this stand. I have to issue a hyperbole alert. 
;-)
     
Alert 1: >In order to produce applications that can live in the environment, 
we will have to use JAVA.
     
There are alternatives to Java. So you don't "have to use Java." While it 
may be the best language in many such cases, there's no law that says 
Internet-enabled applications must use Java. Yes, Sun would sure like that 
kind of law, but it doesn't exist yet.
     
Alert 2: >...but because of the emphasis IBM is putting on JAVA, better get 
your coffee cup warmed up!
     
IBM emphasis means little or nothing. IBM has put significant emphasis on 
many failed or marginal technologies. (I'm not going to name names; I think 
we all know them by heart.)
     
I don't think I'm being too controversial in saying this, but the decision 
to use a given technology should not be based on whether IBM is, for the 
moment, pushing it, but rather on whether the benefits to your company are 
substantial enough to justify the investment. IMHO, we are not supposed to 
be advocates for our (or IBM's) pet technologies, but for those that 
increase the competitiveness, profitability, and success of our 
employers/clients. If that's Java, so be it, but IBM pushing it doesn't ever 
make it so.
     
There are good reasons to use Java in some situations without contributing 
to the myths and hype.
     
Regards,
Jim H.
     
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. 
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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 
+---
     

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@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
+---