Re: application programming. the microsoft vs ibm approach.

[William Washington <w.washington3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe the issue of microsoft vs ibm isn't the languages or wheter ILE is 
better than CLR, but the end-user interface preferences.
 
It seems that the rage now is graphical, browser-based (very thin client) 
access to information housed on the back-end database.  I have a client that is 
ready to throw out the in-house iSeries solution for an outsourced .NET 
solution based solely on "look and feel."  Avectra (www.avectra.com) has a very 
slick browser-based package that uses .NET and SQLServer.
 
The new powers-that-be feel that the iSeries is "old news" and nothing of 
importance is running on it anymore.  The fact that we could duplicate the look 
and feel and still have the iSeries security and ease of admiistration falls on 
deaf ears.
 
My claims of the iSeries capability of running the same type of distributed app 
is ignored... mainly because (I believe) that the iSeries vendors do not 
exploit this user interface.  Those that do get the benefits of avoiding the 
"interactive workload tax" iposed by IBM, but it's a tough sell to build from 
scratch using the same system.  They'd rather more to a new box and buy a 
totally new system.
 
William
 

message: 10
date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:18:45 -0400
from: "Steve Richter" 
subject: RE: application programming. the microsoft vs ibm approach.


Your right about what ILE does.

There are a lot of basics that ILE does not address. Things like
namespaces, class objects, data types, integrated exception handling. These
are elements that are common to all modern programming languages and I am
asking if IBM plans for ILE to handle such things.

The current IBM approach looks to be to provide all of these features in
Java. Besides the fact that I dont know Java, that appears to mean that all
the existing RPG, C, C++, Cobol, etc code will become less and less useable
on an IBM platform. Not to mention, the programmers who work in those
languages.

If that is the way it is going to be, then so be it. Instead of guessing
what IBM plans for ILE, I am hoping IBM can provide an answer.

-Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of G Armour
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:11 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: application programming. the microsoft vs ibm approach.


Maybe I'm about to show my ignorance on the subject, but, doesn't ILE
already function like what MS describes for .NET MSIL/CLR? And has had
for umpteen years? Don't we have ILE languages like RPG, COBOL, C, and
CL? (are there others?)

I admit I don't understand all of the technical lingo you quoted.

Or is just a matter of not having a "rich palette of languages from which
to choose"?

GA

--- Steve Richter wrote:
> Here is a description of the microsoft approach to programming on its
> platform.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/whitepapers/default.aspx
>
> I program on both windows and os400. I would like to know what is IBM's
> stategy for how applications are to be programmed on its systems. Is it
> Java and only Java on the IBM Series systems?
>
> ILE has been the IBM version of the .NET MSIL/CLR. It allows modules
> written in different languages to be combined in an application. Is
> that
> still the case going forward? Does IBM plan to enhance ILE so that the
> following snippet from the above link can also describe what ILE does?
>
> "Programmers may write applications to the .NET Framework using a number
> of
> languages. Each of these languages is compiled to the Microsoft
> Intermediate
> Language (MSIL), which is then converted to native code and executed on
> the
> CLR. Since each language interacts with code written for the CLR, any
> application written in any language can interact with any other
> application
> written in any other language. With the introduction of the CLR,
> programmers
> now have a rich palette of languages from which to choose, helping them
> select the right language for their skills and for the task at hand."
>
> -Steve Richter