Re: Is CFINT IBM's way of getting rid of RPG?

When we upgraded to an 820 we were told we were getting the exact same CPW 
rating
of 120, which we did.  We weren't told that due to the CFINT algorithm change,
the upgraded box wouldn't handle our interactive workload the same way it did
before.  CFINT and RPG are definitely connected and that connection is via the
5250 emulation.  If legacy systems rely on this emulation for their interactive
sessions and CFINT suddenly starts crimping this emulation, then we've got a
problem.  Judging from the discussion thread taking place under 'CFINT' we're 
not
the only ones.  As far as it penalizing other languages, COBOL is the only other
one on the AS400 that would have had enough time to build up a significant
repository of legacy systems to be hurt by this.  Getting rid of COBOL on the
AS400 probably wouldn't bother IBM either, but I think it's more important to
them that they gradually get rid of RPG.  It's the RPG programmers that are
making it hard to break from the past and get a reputation for being a leading
edge vendor.

As for IBM spending its development dollars enhancing RPG, that's where the
'gradual' part comes in.


"DeLong, Eric" wrote:

> John,
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't buy into that. CFINT itself has NOTHING to do with
> RPG. Server models have been sold that severely penalize INTERACTIVE jobs
> (written in any language, not just RPG), but these systems were sold for
> very specific workloads. IBM never promised that these servers would run
> interactive. They in fact were very clear that interactive workloads would
> be penalized.
>
> I'll agree that IBM seems to want us to leave the 5250 environment, but it
> is still an option for customers that IBM will sell and support. IBM seems
> to be enforcing this with pricing structure, making the interactive feature
> codes prohibitively expensive. However, given enough $$, you can support
> more interractive sessions on an iSeries than ever before.
>
> As to IBM's attitude toward RPG, I'm delighted with the enhancement of this
> compiler over the last few years. IBM would NOT spend its development
> dollars on a product it was desperate to squash. V5R1 delivers a great deal
> of enhancement to RPG, in addition to Java, webshpere, linux, etc.
>
> JMHO,
> Eric DeLong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Rockwell [mailto:midson@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:24 PM
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Is CFINT IBM's way of getting rid of RPG?
>
> Here's a thought.  What if IBM thinks the only way the iSeries can
> survive is by getting rid of RPG?  The thinking would go something like
> this.
>
>    1. Customers are tied to their legacy applications by the programs
> they've grown accustomed to.
>
>    2. These legacy applications taint the iSeries when it's competing
> against the latest technologies because competitors dismiss
>        them as old green screen applications.
>
>    3. Most of these green screen applications are in RPG and a lot of
> the more valuable ones are interactive in nature.
>
>    4. Now what happens if we suddenly make a seemingly unrelated
> marketing change, breaking the pricing of the AS400 into
>        two separate features, batch and interactive, and then charge a
> fortune for the interactive segment.  And let's make it even
>        more interesting by tuning CFINT so it really does succeed as a
> governor when you move to versions 4.5.
>
>    5. How long will it take for RPG and the high price of the
> interactive feature to be linked together, making new technologies
>        like Domino, JAVA, et al, more appealing because they
> conveniently run in batch as far as the AS400 is concerned (even
>        though this changes the definition of batch a bit)?  Thus through
> a little sleight of hand the argument changes from language
>        vs. language (with a company usually having to rely on its own
> in-house programmers judgment) to an argument simply
>        over dollars (with a company having more than enough accountants
> to make a case against the legacy system).
>
> Just thinking out loud of course.  It also makes me wonder about the
> requirement that you have to move to 4.5 (where the governor works very
> well) to get to an 820 box.  I know we've been able to spike the
> interactive well over 14% (our purchased interactive feature's maximum),
> which wouldn't seem to be possible if the limit was truly a hardware
> limitation instead of a contrived software limitation.  Some weekend
> when no ones on the system I'm going to start a bunch of
> interactive jobs, set them to 0 priority, and see if they can give the
> governor a run for its money.  (Of course I won't change the class
> priority value in case I have to re-IPL to get QINTER functioning
> again.)  This assumes our contract with IBM has no clause against doing
> so, of course.
>
> +---
> | 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
> +---

+---
| 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
+---