Re: CFINT: I understand it now...

["Leif Svalgaard" <leif@xxxxxxxx>]

From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
> You're right, Leif.  A server program is more efficient than the
> corresponding monolithic program, but the sum of the client program and the
> server program is roughly equivalent.  However, a server can provide
> performance boosts such as leaving data paths open and caching small tables
> that simply aren't as efficiently implemented in a monolithic program that
> is invoked in different interactive sessions.  Correct?

===> yes, but not to the point of making it 'far MORE' efficient. In fact,
a decebt operating makes more of a difference by caching accesses, etc.
So, yes, but not 'far MORE'.

>
> > Let us assume for a moment that everybody went where 'IBM
> > wants them to go' and converted everything to run client/server.
> > That would remove the CFINT revenue and if as some (e.g.
> > Jon Pais) have claimed that revenue is essential to the viability
> > of the platform, then the platform will die when everybody is
> > doing client/server. The only saving grace is that doing client/
> > server may require a lot more processing power forcing people
> > to buy bigger boxes thus enhancing IBM's revenue to offset the
> > CFINT tax,
>
> Ah, but I don't agree with Jon's assertion.

===> neither do I, BTW, I think the CFINT tax is just a 'low-hanging fruit',
but Jon is not alone, there are many others of a similar ilk.


> client/server processing is better than monolithic programming.

===> no argument, really. I was just not convinced by your very
strong statement that C/S is 'far MORE' efficient. C/S is a 'far
BETTER' approach for many other reasons.