EGL is an IBM Product

Nathan Andelin wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion for a new VENDORS-L list. It kind of sounds like you want to relegate discussion of non-IBM licensed products to a separate list and let you promote EGL on the established lists <smile> Wow, talk about an unlevel playing field! That would work for you?

Yes it would. Of course a lot of that is because your statements above make some pretty strong assumptions. I find those assumptions troubling enough that I'll detail my views for the community and you can decide for yourselves how you feel about it. As for me, this will be clear enough that I won't need to post anymore. If anyone has questions, send them to me privately because I really don't want to take any more bandwidth with my thoughts on the issue. One big message that you can easily Next past <smile>.

Anyway, the first assumption I find troubling is the idea that Midrange-L is meant to be a "level playing field" for IBM products and vendor products. It's never really been that way. In fact, until recently vendor products have only been allowed to be mentioned in direct respnose to an inquiry. Only lately has David allowed you and Aaron to discuss your frameworks pretty much with impunity. (In your case specifically Nathan I think it's because you have said in the past that you planned to open your frameworks to the community as an open source project. I assume that's still the case, right?)

Anyway, a VENDORS-L would allow a less restrictive environment for commercial products to be discussed. Anything could go there, going so far as allowing announcement of products and so on if David so desired In any event, it would remove the discussion of commercial products from Midrange-L, especially the thinly disguised product advertisements that sneak in from time to time. By the way, you'll note that I almost never discuss my products. That's because I understand the rules of engagement here on the lists (or at least I thought I did).

Second is this odd notion espoused by a few people that talking about EGL is some sort of promotion and against the spirit of the list. Talking about EGL is no different than talking about RPG or COBOL or Java. They are all IBM-supported languages, they are all available on the i. In fact, what *I* don't understand is the bias against EGL here on these lists. You pay for EGL the same way you pay for ADTS or RPG. It's a licensed program product, and as such is one of the things these lists was originally intended to discuss.

So, to sum up: yes, I think the Midrange-L list should be more open to discussions about IBM products from RPG to HMC, from Java to iNav, from EGL to LTO, than it should be to any commercial products. It's always been that way, and it's worked well.

I agree with you though; the lists need guidelines and moderation.

The guidelines are there, and the moderation is only needed for a handful of individuals, one of which I realize is me. But I'm getting better <smile>.

One problem with the new EGL list is the name. Who really cares about EGL (the language)? How many debates to you envision between EGL, RPG, COBOL, C, CL, etc.? IIRC, the language elements are a trivial part of the package.

Huge disagreement here. EGL is fundamentally as important as Ruby on Rails or maybe even Java itself. Only time will tell whether the community adopts it, but if you take the teime to really understand it you won't be able to minimize the engineering of the language. Not only that, but EGL is one of the few things about the i that actually is known outside the i community. The mainframers know what EGL is, and the UML community knows about it too. If anything, playing in the EGL space gives the i some credibility in the broader community.

Isn't it really the package that matters (RDi and RBD)? I think it would be a good idea to rename the list to RDi & RBD to give it more scope and attract new members. Aside from that, I think it would also be appropriate to discuss RDi & RBD on Web400 because most folks will use it for Web application development.

I'll reiterate my position: RUI probably belongs on the WEB400 list, as does discussion of JSF tooling in RBD, especially when discussing it in comparison to other web technologies. EGL discussion of all types could also go in the EGL list. RDi, on the other hand, belongs the same place as SEU and PDM: on the Midrange-L list, or on the appropriate language list (RPG or COBOL) when specific to that language.

Okay, that's it. I'm done. I know I'm the EGL booster here and one of the lone voices in the wind. It's funny, but not too long ago I was the lone WDSC booster and I heard a lot of the same arguments, and I'm no longer alone there. We'll just have to wait and see if I was right this time as well. As to the lists and how they're arranged and managed, David's done a fine job to this point and I see no reason to think he won't make the right choices again.

Joe