• Subject: Java replacing RPG (was LANSA)
  • From: Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:53:12 -0500

 >> 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

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

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: david@midrange.com

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2021 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.