Re: what was the single mgmt decision made in mid-1990s. period

I have no doubt that if Rochester were to convert IBM i to a native GUI, the platform would take off. But at what cost? Who would license RDI-SOA? Who would need Websphere and all the configuration and performance management services that accompany it?

A non-standard GUI? IBM couldn't give it away.

Just an aside. I have always considered the idea of running GUI's on a
server as insanity. Microsoft does it because they developed a GUI for
games and comsumer and then decided they wanted into the server
market. Doesn't make it right.

Workstation and Servers have completely different design objective
something IBM understands and if you have worked in Windows shops
using PC for business applications and watched the e-mail come flowing
in. "Please shutdown you application. We need to reboot the server",
you know Microsoft doesn't. A GUI is about performance, a server about
stability and security.

The biggest problem I have seen with what IBM is doing with the i is
that Java performance sucks. Hopefully with V6R1 we will begin to get
past that but I still haven't seen any comparisons of running
applications on V6R1 vs running on Windows server. It is hard to get
people to run Java apps on i when they run on PC many many times
faster.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: M. Lazarus
In your estimation, how much longer does it take to code an
application doing it with a GUI vs. green screen?

Generally speaking, it may take 5-20 times longer to write HTML, CSS, and JavaScript than display file DDS, depending on one's skill level.

But regarding application development in general, wouldn't one's productivity depend on whether the application fit a model or design pattern that they've already built before, or whether completely new code must be written?

Personally, I specialize in Web applications that follow pre-defined models, so my productivity in that respect is better now than it ever was at green-screen development.

Or allowing both, depending on what type the user prefers?

Personally, I don't think I would have gone to the trouble of developing models for Web applications if I didn't think I could come up with one that was more productive and offerred more features than the traditional IBM i "work with" model. Users prefer mine.

But your question raises a good point about modularizing code, following MVC design techniques, so you could do both. And my models separate DB I/O and business rules into modules that could interface with both browser and green-screen clients.

Their entire VAR / Business Partner model, which I recall going
way back, is based on the realization that IBM is NOT good at
the application stuff, so why not team up with the professionals
that ARE good at it?

You should meet the new IBM. They have been quietly, but systematically buying application development firms and building their custom technology group, and moving much of their development operations overseas.

That's not to say that IBM doesn't vasillate back and forth, appeasing business partners when they see fit, but their tendency is to move steadily into space that business partners previously occupied.

I have no doubt that if Rochester were to convert IBM i to a native GUI, the platform would take off. But at what cost? Who would license RDI-SOA? Who would need Websphere and all the configuration and performance management services that accompany it?



--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.