RE: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

Steve,

I don't know the OO lingo, all that well...  But I understand the general
concepts and the objectives.  I've been using abstraction in coding, in
spite of not knowing the lingo.  Somewhere around here I gotta book by Grady
Booch (I think the name was) that I bought back in the early to mid-80's.

The reason I never read it was this:  The extra layer I'm referring to is
the learning curve.  Maybe OO really IS that great of a tool, and maybe it
never delivered on the promise because CPU processing speed just hasn't
quite caught up to what it needed to be.  But given Moore's Law, and how
long OO's been around, I suspect it's because the way it's currently
implemented, OO does not *sufficiently* justify the complexity involved in
becoming proficient.

I guess I always figured if a tool required an advanced degree to become
proficient in it, there better be a predominance of coders who both a) have
advanced degrees, and b) understand the nature of how businesses works.  I
haven't seen that happen, yet, but I suppose it still could, someday.

Thanks for the comments.

jt



> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Steve Richter
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 10:14 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jt" <jt@ee.net>
>
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > You wrote "When you add a layer ( in this case many layers ) to any
> > software, you increase its complexity. That is bad."
> >
> > I can't agree more.  Adding an extra layer of abstraction, using OO, in
> > order to achieve maintainable programs, is also "bad".
> >
> > Rather than "bad".. I should say there are tradeoffs involved, in any
> > approach.
> >
>
> James,
>
> The objective in the object model is to provide an interface that the pgmr
> programs to. The complexity below the interface is the concern of the
> interface provider. In os400, the interface are cl cmds and
> system api's. To
> illustrate my point re: the client server model adds complexity
> to a system,
> consider how much more complex ( harder ) os400 would be to for
> the pgmr if
> all the interfaces were via dtaq instead of pgm calls.
>
> The only tradeoff I see that justifies the client/server model is the low
> horsepower of a CFINT system. Get rid of CFINT, remove the need for
> client/server, reduce complexity of as400 applications, improve the
> viability of our system.
>
> Steve Richter
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>