>> The point isn't one of "replacement" and you know it! Now now Roger - I know you copyrighted "Tee hee" (Copyright R. Pence - used without permission) but you don't have an exclusive on facetious remarks !!! As you stated, I'm very aware that replacement is not the issue here but I think that there are degrees. For example - your phrase "will NOT be built with RPG in the 21st century." I think I would modify this to say "... built completely with RPG ..." There is and will remain a _place_ for RPG in AS/400 development for a number of years. To say that there are alternatives for reporting etc. is an over simplification - of course there are - there have been for twenty years or more - but they do nothing to help move an existing app forward. All the time the existing apps stay where they are, movement on other fronts is harder to promote. >> You, of all people, .... should help put a rational story out. Not one that poohs the whole issue with a wink and nod and conveys a false sense of security. And I do .. not exactly the same story as you, but I hammer away at folks every day for their reluctance to use reasonable tools (Code/400 or Flex rather than SEU), their failure to adopt modular programming techniques, etc. etc. I encourage them to get into Java, Domino, etc. as the way to the future. In this response I knew that to a large extent that I was preaching to the choir, so I chose to be flip rather than serious. I do believe that most RPGers are well served by getting into RPG IV, using Subprocedures etc. Hooking into C functions, sockets, IFS, etc. etc. There are, as you and I discussed recently, many reasons behind the reluctance of RPGers to throw off their monolithic code structures - the absence on tools to help them restructure being one of them. My biggest gripe with Rochester for years now has been that they spend millions and millions promoting the "latest and greatest" and encouraging their BPs to adopt the technology. But spend _nothing_ to assist customers in moving their investment forward. A tiny fraction of what was spent on idiot moves like the infamous "Hamburger" ads could go a long way. J. D. Edwards (and others) could do a lot to move customers forward by producing a decent version of the old-fashioned monolithic heaps that they continue to sell, that demonstrated to people the _right_way_ to build apps. They'd reduce their support costs significantly and wouldn't have to rework due to maxing out the program size. Will they do it? not without Rochester encouraging them and that's not likely to happen. Enough already, we're on the same side I think - just a difference in emphasis. Unless you wanna pick a fight ........ +--- | 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: email@example.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.