Re: George is Farr from where we want to be

Aaron,

First, I think you have to explain why you dont think Java is
practical on the i5. I agree that it is not. My reasons are that java
does not play well with other code like ILE languages, it does not
work well with system APIs,  the slow, slow, slow i5 CPU does not have
enough umph to run java and you cant do green screen programming with
it.

In your article you say you want IBM to provide an ILE native web
framework. Something that enables next generation web apps, which
CGIDEV2 does not.

What is it that is preventing such a framework from evolving out of
the ILE procedure library vendor community?  When you look at ASP.NET
you see a framework that any Windows .NET class vendor could provide.
If MSFT did not code and ship ASP.NET, other vendors would have done
it.  In our case, IBM is not providing the framework you are asking
for. Why have 3rd party vendors not stepped forward?

My answer is that a) the geared down i5 does not have the power to run
a multi level, encapsulated interface framework.   b) ILE does not
support the garbage collection, pass by reference, inherited object
model of programming you need for a framework to provide the
encapsulated interfaces you would expect it to provide.

When you look at .NET you see what a massive effort is necesary to
provide a run time framework which integrates with all aspects of a
platform and distributed applications.  The integration of C++ into
.NET is roughly equivalent to the task of integrating ILE code as an
equal citizen into the JVM. Roughly because first you have to add
class style objects to RPG, which was not necessary with C++ because
C++ already has all the language constructs you see in Java and C#.
Once RPG can instantiate class objects you have to enable RPG to
instantiate those objects in the JVM so they can be garbage collected
and passed by reference to Java code.  And you have to enable the RPG
ILE native stuff to be walled off from the objects in the JVM. It is a
big job and only a small fraction of what MSFT did with .NET.

.NET was a bet the company initiative launched almost 10 yrs ago,
implemented by a lot of smart people who are in it for the long term.
The next release, .NET 3.0, has something called LINQ that integrates
SQL type syntax into .NET CLI compliant languages. LINQ requires all
sorts of language and framework features ( like generics ) that it has
taken years now to put in place.

IBM used to do this sort of thing when it created the 360 and 370
operating systems.  Same with the S/38.  Even ILE has a lot to say for
it in terms of being an industry leading technology, achieved by a
commendable long term effort.

I guess you can argue that IBM still does have a long term vision (
for system software ) and is willing to invest in it. The problem for
us i5 folk is IBM's efforts are focused on Java and Linux and whatever
the latest Java based framework is called.

It think George Farr is doing everyong a favor by telling us that IBM
is focused elsewhere than RPG and i5/OS.  RPG and native i5/OS shops
have to work at moving their applications to where IBM is and not the
other way around.

-Steve