RE: POV/C++/OO -- MIDRANGE-L

Ahhhh.. so, Weedwacker...!  Maybe that should be a question on Weakest Link,
or Millionaire.

I'm looking for 3rd party tools, because I don't know that IBM is going to
take a gamble on rejuvenating RPG and DDS.  Seen no indication of it.  But I
think the market is there...  Now, obviously, my opinion may not be
objective, and may be merely wishful thinking.

jt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Reeve Fritchman
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:52 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: POV/C++/OO
>
>
> The problem isn't what we think of "new" technology; it's how do we get
> there from here.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On
> Behalf Of jt
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 3:15 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: c++ (was RE: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less
> than zero)
>
> Steve,
>
> I do not completely agree with this POV.  I think there is a lot
> of strength
> to the argument that c++, as well as Java, are not very good languages to
> develop business apps in, to begin with.
>
> This can be debated, ad infinitum, so I doubt if I'll pursue it.
>
> The whole industry agrees with your POV, Steve, so it's a trend that's
> pretty hard to buck.  But the sheer numbers of systems still
> running on RPG
> and DDS, IN SPITE OF the fact that basically the ENTIRE industry is
> COMPLETELY against it indicates 2 alternative views of the situation (both
> of which I believe are true, to an extent):
>
> a) Some RPG coders don't like to learn new things
> b) Some RPG coders don't like to sacrifice what works, based on the
> conventional "wisdom"
>
>
> I don't mean to say that OO is all bad, either.. just that it ain't the
> panacea that they've be predicting for 20 years.
>
>
> jt
>
>
> "Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> > [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Steve Richter
> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:54 PM
> > To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> > Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
> >
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I think you and others miss the point on why cfint is so bad.
> >
> > With such little cpu available to a pgm, programmers cannot use modern
> > coding techniques such as the encapsulation of data and methods that are
> > used in c++.
> >
> > This results in programmers who do not know much about these techniques,
> > programs that are lmited in their functionality and
> applications which are
> > limited also.
> >
> > Sure many iSeries systems do have the horsepower needed for
> C++, but many
> > more do not, so vendors have less incentive to write applications
> > for these
> > systems because cfint will prevent their appl from running the
> > way it should
> > on many other as400 systems.
> >
> > The end result: IBM makes some money, modern applications are
> not written,
> > and programmers dont learn to code the way they should.
> >
> > -Steve Richter
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>
> > To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
> >
> >
> > > On Friday 09 November 2001 10:48 am, James Rich wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes.  The small customer says, "Slower, smaller capacity hardware is
> > > > cheaper to produce.  Those lower prices should mean I pay
> less for the
> > > > machine.  I am getting screwed if I have to pay for high-powered
> > hardware
> > > > that is then artificially slowed."
> > >
> > > Your response is a definite, "No it isn't and no you are not."
> > To produce
> > a
> > > seperate line of hardware to address the lower end of the market would
> > > require a different manufacturing line in a plant. The costs
> associated
> > > with this can be very large. If IBM were to need to manufacture a
> > different
> > > processor configuration for each price point in the market the overall
> > cost
> > > would he higher to them than the cost of manufacturing all the
> > processors
> > > on one production line and just licensing them to different customer
> > > requirements.
> > >
> > > The proof of this is that IBM is the one paying the costs. If
> they could
> > be
> > > saving money on the manufacture, they would be. Whether or not
> > they'd pass
> > > that on is debatable maybe, but I don't think they chose the
> > CFINT method
> > > of handling this so they could pay higher marketing costs.
> > >
> > > > The big customer says, "I paid a premium for high-performance.  My
> > > > expensive machine has the same hardware capacity as the inexpensive
> > > > machine.  Why don't I get a lower price if the same hardware
> > can be sold
> > > > more cheaply?  I am getting screwed!"
> > >
> > > "No, you are not." Because IBM offsets some of its
> > manufacturing costs by
> > > licensing some machines to smaller users, the overall cost of
> > delivery to
> > > the big customer is reduced so they pay less, not more. IBM is not
> > crowding
> > > out big deliveries by packing small orders into the production
> > line. They
> > > are letting the production line run at optimum capacity and
> > they are using
> > > the smaller licenses to offset some costs.
> > >
> > > That would be my answer, but that was just off the top of my head. ;-)
> > >
> > > > James Rich
> > > > james@eaerich.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chris Rehm
> > > javadisciple@earthlink.net
> > >
> > > And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
> > > ...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
> > > commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> > list
> > > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> > > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> > > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> > mailing list
> > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>