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

Janet,

You addressed this to Tom, so I hope he won't mind my "cutting in" on him.
PLEASE don't get exasperated with my reply.  As frequently happens, I agree
with *everything you said here*, but still.. I draw a different conclusion.
I don't intend to be difficult...  See inline.

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
> jkrueger@andrewscg.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 2:45 AM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: OO benefits? (was Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is
> less than zero )
>
>
> >> Is this list restricted to "business programmers"?
>
> Of course not.  But I find it hard to listen to a debate about some of the
> ongoing merits of RPG (or of green screen programming) without
> putting it in the
> context of business programming; we're kidding ourselves if we
> think we're going
> to sell RPG to computer scientists in universities, or to system
> architects
> doing operating system programming.

I can't agree more...  However, I don't see any need to sell it to these two
groups.

Furthermore, I may have implied I was looking to sell RPG to computer
scientists, but what I really think they would absolutely eat up is a
CL-like command-line interface to *nix.  My younger Sister and
Brother-in-Law are Professors, and have worked at ORNL previously.  I don't
see them using RPG...  But they WOULD really enjoy *nix more, and be better
at it, if they had this kind of interface.

Now, it no doubt appeared I'm trying to sell OS architects on the advantages
of RPG.  Not so...  I am merely suggesting they don't ignore the positive
aspects of RPG.  I see the developers of "throwing the baby out with the
bath water" these days.  This is typically viewed as a reactionary POV, a
desire to "return to the good old days"...  I'm hardly that naive, because I
recall the "good old days" weren't all that great, in many respects...!  But
I suggest that RPG is EXTREMELY undervalued as a potential solution, not
just by the 400 architects, but by the 400 Community itself.  Not just by
the current 400 architects (or rather SOME of them), but by the ENTIRE
COMPUTER INDUSTRY.  RPG may be a joke, to many...  I'm just stressing that
if you think it's a joke, you probably don't know RPG as well as some of us
here do.

I think these kinds of statements offend some people.  I intend no offense.
I don't see RPG as the be-all and end-all, and I still have a copy of VB 1.0
around here some place.  (Still no good at it...;-)  But I believe there's
more than one way to skin a cat, and I've stated that repeatedly.  People
probably think I'm just giving the concept lip service, because I keep
"pushing" my style of RPG.

I "push" it, in reaction to the fact that it's basically being ignored, by a
tremendously large segment of the industry.

I will try to tone that down...

But what will cause the industry to take RPG seriously...?  Most appear to
overlook what I call TRW...  Examples abound of how RPG in particular, and
the 400 in general, is the most stable platform to build business apps on.
I don't know that more examples of same will cause people to take RPG
seriously.  (And by RPG I mean, of course, RPG/DDS/CL.. ie the 400.)

But one last point about convincing OS architects on the value of RPG.  I
don't consider this the primary goal.  Because folks like Joe, Rob Dixon,
myself, Nathan, Brad(s), "moose", Dave George...  These folks are working on
re-architecting the 400.  This is who I speak to...  These folks have the
skills to do it, but remains to be seen to what extent it will be
successfully implemented...

> And when I look at problems
> in the domain of
> business programming, I just don't happen to believe IBM has a
> corner on all the
> most competitive tools and languages that can be leveraged.

Can't agree more...!

I didn't mean to imply that other ISVs don't have viable solutions.  If I
did imply that, then let me categorically state again:  I don't mean to tear
down existing products, when I point to areas they can be improved on.  I'm
thinking out loud, about how I /intend/ to improve on them.  But I do not
view things in such absolutes, and I don't view these products as being
wholly insufficient, just because I think there are some design flaws.

> IBM
> has finally
> packaged together a number of good things, including web facing,
> in the V5R1
> iSeries programming packages, and I'm certainly not trying to
> knock them down...

Nor I...  Same goes for IBM, what I said in the previous paragraph...  I
think I sound disrespectful of the current 400 architects.  I'm sorry I come
across that way.  But I've posted before, the reason I started writing about
a year ago, was to HONOR THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTS OF THE 38...  I 'spose I
respect them more than the current designers, and that's probably unfair, on
my part...


> I just wanted to encourage people to look a little ways outside
> the IBM box for
> ideas!

And I'm trying to produce a product that does just that...!  You ARE
encouraging us to look outside the IBM box.  I consider that box to consist
of the hardware/OS/tools that IBM provides.  I also consider the box, in a
wider sense...  It includes the apps, and all the various clients that
attach...  It includes, ultimately, all the groups that make up the iNation,
in it's widest sense, so that's a pretty big box to think outside...!

I still tend to think within the confines of the 38/400/i arena...  But,
just because that's my focus, doesn't mean it's the only viable solution.  I
may imply that, because I've also posted I think it should take it's proper
role as the best platform.. bar none...  Maybe it would be better if I
stated I'd settle for it getting a larger chunk of the industry pie...!

Finally (do I hear applause...;-)  ANY AND ALL ideas you have on the
subject, especially ideas which narrow the focus of the discussion, would be
(and are) greatly appreciated...!  Hope I haven't offended...

>
> Janet
>

Again, thanks Janet, and "Have a GREAT day...!  And a BETTER ONE
TOMORROW~~~:-)" (sm)