Re: Time to get serious -- MIDRANGE-L


On 01/03/2005, at 5:53 PM, Joe Pluta wrote:

From: Simon Coulter
Not true. RPG in all its dialects is a niche language.


Only for those who mistakenly consider the iSeries a niche computer.
Hundreds of thousands of them with a capitalization in the tens of
billions of dollars running everything from banks to hotels to
manufacturing plants worldwide belies any such marginalization, and yet
there are people who continue to try.  It's the most successful machine
never marketed, and yet some still believe it's a niche product with a
niche language.

The IBM midrange is, was, and will be an integral part of the IT
industry, no matter how much the unenlightened try to pretend it's not.

In many ways it is a niche computer system. You fail to grasp that even though it is an excellent system (and the best business computer ever produced) it is still in the minority. If you compare 400/iSeries to any other individual midrange brand then it is the most successful but when compared to IT as a whole it is a niche so your argument is nonsensical anyway.

It has generated billions primarily because the components are more expensive than the alternatives. The mainframe market also generates billions more on less units. The PC market also generates billions and is bigger than the 400/iSeries market in both dollar value and units sold. What were you trying to prove again?

I think that 400/iSeries prices are deserved because it is so much better than the alternatives but that doesn't lend any weight to your argument. It is indeed the most successful midrange system but the RPG programming language is still a niche language--and here we start the famous Joe Pluta sliding argument. The very same thing your accuse others of doing. To wit:

I say the RPG language is a niche language. You counter with the argument that the 400/iSeries isn't niche therefore the RPG language can't possibly be niche. There is no correlation between the two--and your base premise is wrong.

(I hope the current advertising push by IBM continues but I won't hold my breath. It would be nice if every person in IT knew what an iSeries was and what it could do but IBM is now a services organisation and there are more services dollars in pushing other platforms. If IBM ever gets back to doing what is right for the customer then they might properly promote the iSeries but that will take a major shift in thinking. I realise this is not part of our current argument hence the parentheses. I offer it merely as an observation.)

The only place RPG is used widely is on 400/iSeries (given that all other IBM midrange platforms are out of support and effectively dead). RPG on the few other platforms that support it is an outdated and dead dialect of RPG II and is not much used because there are better alternatives in those environments. If the only programming language you know is RPG then your employment prospects are limited--anywhere in the world. That's a niche.

There is no reason a modern computer science graduate should know RPG
and even less reason they should know *of* RPG. It has no bearing on
their most likely employment requirements.
Once again, it really depends on your viewpoint. If you consider pushing buttons on Visual Studio a programming job, then certainly you can ignore the IBM midrange. On the other hand, if you actually want to program real business applications, the iSeries is the place to be and RPG is the way to do it.

Shifting the ground of the argument yet again. Yes, 400/iSeries is the best system for business computing. Not because of the RPG programming language but because of the system itself. Primarily the much vaunted integration.

RPG is no better at business programming than COBOL or PL/1. That's fact else COBOL wouldn't be used for so much business programming on mainframe environments. They'd be crying out for an alternative. COBOL is used there not because RPG is not available but because COBOL on the mainframe is a much more poweful, rounded, and complete language than RPG on the mainframe. COBOL on OS/400 is no less powerful. Nor is it less capable on 400/iSeries. You have an alternative opinion and incorrectly believe RPG to be better. It's not. It is a valid alternative in our world but not the best--simply because there is no such thing as BEST when it comes to programming languages (although PL/1 comes close). There is "more suitable" but even that cannot be argued in favour of RPG unless you restrict the argument to RPG IV vs. C or RPG IV vs. Java. When it's RPG IV vs. everything else it becomes obviously apparent that RPG is merely one of a number of acceptable alternatives.

COBOL is a major language. It has a presence on almost all
platforms--and in a reasonably modern variant of the language too.


Now we're into "Simon's view of the world" and frankly, my opinion is
just as valid as yours.  Mine has better credentials, though <smile>.

Actually it's not my view of the world. Do some research. COBOL is still the language in which most of the world's business applications are written.

Your credentials are no better than mine. Your ego is bigger than mine so I'm sure you believe your statements. You already know exactly what I think of your various comments but I shall refrain from restating that here because it could be viewed as against the forum guidelines.

favour because most commercial midrange packages are written in some
dialect of RPG.


I love it.  COBOL is a major language, but losing favor because most
midrange packages are written in RPG, which is not a major language.
You can say this and not even get the irony of it.

I obviously wasn't clear (although I suspect you are simply twisting things to make your case). I meant losing favour on 400/iSeries. Even if RPG were the only programming language used on 400/iSeries that would not lift it from niche status. See arguments above. Nor does COBOL fading somewhat from the 400/iSeries environment remove it from the status of a major language--unless you want to restrict the argument to 400/iSeries world in which case you would be shifting the ground again.

The reason most commercial applications for 400/iSeries are written in RPG is two-fold: 1) Many of them started life on early midrange hardware where there wasn't much alternative. 2) Most of them are written by American companies where the skill-base is RPG.

More a case of using RPG 'cause that's what they know rather than it being any better suited for the job.

To cling to the idea the RPG is the best language, primarily because
that's the one you know best, says more about you than the language.
I'm fluent in enough programming languages that this statement is either amusing or insulting. Or maybe both <smile>. And of all those languages, RPG is absolutely, unequivocally the best language for describing business rules contained in a database. As I have challenged every other person who disagrees with me I so challenge you: write an MRP generation in any language you choose. I'll write it in RPG, and mine will be smaller, faster, better featured and more easily maintainable than yours. Not to mention written in less time.

Probably both--I do try. Whether you can write a smaller, faster, better featured, and more easily maintained MRP generation has more to do with the particular business skill set you possess than the language you choose. I really don't care if you have more business programming experience than I. So I won't take you up on your silly challenge. Besides, I have no interest in pandering to your penchant for pissing contests.

Nor does that invalidate my statements--much as you might try to twist things that way. I will continue to challenge and correct your grossly inaccurate statements lest the unwary think because your statements go unchallenged you are right.

Anyway, enough already. Your opinion is duly noted, and given its appropriate due. Luckily, IBM disagrees with you, and in the end that's all that matters.

IBM don't disagree with me any more than they agree with you. They support RPG on 400/iSeries--ONLY! I don't see them creating modern RPG IV compilers for Z/OS or AIX or Linux. They could if it truly were the marvellous all-singing all-dancing business language you proclaim but strangely enough they are putting their cross-platform support elsewhere. Perhaps that's because they also know it is a niche language.

As for "enough already", that's not possible. You won't ever let anyone else have the last word so I'm sure I'll hear more from you--but a response will have to wait until tomorrow, it's bedtime in this part of the world.

Regards,
Simon Coulter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists

   http://www.flybynight.com.au/
   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175                                   \ /
                                                             X
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------