Re: OO benefits? (was Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero )

[jkrueger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>> Complexity = Sum of distinct steps the pgmr needs to be knowledgeable of to
perfom a task.

>> So I am suspicious of client/server increasing complexity because their are
more steps the pgmr needs to know about in a cs tran than a pgm call tran.

>> Client server via dtaq is more complex that the pgm call because the pgmr
must be knowledgable of 7 steps compared to 4 in the common module pgm call
approach.

Good analysis!  But I have to point out, you vastly over simplified the number
of things the client/server programmer needs to understand, because you didn't
include the steps for starting the servers and putting them in 'listen' mode,
you didn't talk about debugging skills, and you didn't talk about the on-going
maintenance challenges...

Client/Server (and any multi-tiered architecture) *IS* more complicated than
programming within a single system!

That said, though, there are a number of good points to be made for the style of
architecture needed to build applications that leverage multiple tiers. I'd like
to contribute the following observation:

Just because one programming architecture may have strengths over another
doesn't mean that is good to force all business programmers to understand it and
deal with it on a day to day basis... There are dozens and dozens of programming
tools available whose sole purpose in life is to shield the business programmer
from system complexities!!!

IMHO, much of this argument smacks of debates I was hearing thirty years ago
about why one flavor of assembler language was better than another... It keeps
making me wonder why we can't raise our arguments up to a more relevant level!

Janet Krueger
Andrews Consulting Group