RE: open source IBM i. was Re: From RGP to ¿Java ? -- MIDRANGE-L

I hope that IBM wakes up before it's too late and realizes that an
integrated GUI is now a core requirement, not a fancy add-on.

The should have done this in the 80's, or 90's.
As an answer to X-Windows, like their answer to Unix teletype in the 70's.
The "green screen", DDS, block-oriented, 5250, at that time was superior for a business environment.

They should provide a "native" GUI (native meaning simple, integrated), event-driven,
but block-oriented (only interesting events should be communicated not all mouse-clicks),
and flexible enough to be integrated into existing RPG programs. It could be a mix of
traditional code and event-driven code, giving the best of two worlds. Unlike a "normal"
GUI app where the "main program" is always just an event-loop in RPG the "main program"
*can* process events (by calling a proc or opcode) and continue the main program if all
events are processed and continue normal execution, or just process events until end of
program, or any combination.

Technically this is no rocket-science, just a lot of work, but IBM would not do it since
they "re-invented" themselves in the 90's and make lots of money with "services".
In their view, IBM "i" is not a platform with a great business proposition (integrated,
working out-of-the-box, simple, consistent, robust, scalable, etc) but a milking cow
and the prospect of a lucrative market which is in need for a lot of services in the
nearby future to "modernize" (i.e. rebuild) all these RPG apps.

IMHO

Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 00:18:06 -0400
From: mlazarus@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: open source IBM i. was Re: From RGP to ¿Java ?
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx

James,

There are quite a few vendors that provide GUI enabling
utilities. They all have downsides, including: Cost, effort to
integrate, keeping the green screen and GUI code is synch, needing to
learn another language (in some cases.)

A GUI is not necessarily stateless. Why can't DDS be event
driven? The basic converted functionality can be stateful. VARPG
has shown that RPG can do the job. One of the wonderful features of
this system is that the major functionality is INTEGRATED.

Us developers would definitely use an integrated, native GUI. Some
of the necessary keywords are already in DDS (useable by the
almost(?) defunt WSG product.)

One caveat is that it all the components must be a no-charge part
of the OS, so software vendors can write to it without concern that
their customer base would not have the LPP.

As an aside, I just spoke to a colleague that is going through a
similar situation with his clients. With the younger management
making decisions, they are looking to move away from their trusty IBM
midrange computer and looking at something snazzier. It's a losing
battle! Even the traditional Midrange Faithful are deserting. This
hasn't happened in such large numbers until the last few years.

If we use a third party product, we much pass along the costs of
that product to the customer. That tends to make our product price
uncompetitive. So, even though we might be in the running with a
shiny GUI, we then lose on the price.

I hope that IBM wakes up before it's too late and realizes that an
integrated GUI is now a core requirement, not a fancy add-on.

-mark

At 5/10/09 01:44 PM, you wrote:

I have not been on a sales call, but most ERP vendors these days do offer a
GUI. It's usually just ran through something like Seagull and in general I
don't usually like them, but it's there.

There are several GUI options. You can write a nice GUI in .NET, JavaSever
Faces/Pages, Swing, or even CGI.

Well, they (IBM) had VisualAge RPG which not many people seemed to adopt
(before my time so I don't really know why). They have HATS and WebFacing,
not really a great option but it's there. Now there is EGL.

The main problem as I see it is that most vendors don't usually want
re-write all their displays. That's what really needs to happen. I don't see
any feasable way to convert DDS to some fancy GUI. A native GUI needs to be
event driven which DDS and usally the controlling RPG are not. When someone
presses F3 you can't just lock the screen up and do what you would in RPG.

So, you would have to re-create all your DDS and display controlling
programs anyway. Why does that have to be native? Why would it not make just
has much if not more sense to use an already created and proven technology?

--
James R. Perkins

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 21:04, M. Lazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

James,

At 5/8/09 01:06 PM, you wrote:

I personally don't think that RPG needs a nice GUI like others do.

Why do you say this? Have you gone on a sales call where your
competition has the GUI and you don't? I have and it's not
pretty. The non-GUI software barely has a chance. That's just the
reality for most decision makers. They want brand new software that
looks and feels brand new.

In the past IBM has tried to give us this and very few people did
anything with it, so they gave up and how can blame them.

Did anyone find out WHY it failed? Was it too expensive? Too
difficult to implement? To resource hungry? Too limited in functionality?

I'm betting that it was one or more of the above reasons. That
does NOT mean that we don't want / need a native GUI to make us
competitive. The same way that IBM woke up and included TCP/IP as an
integral part of i5/OS or risk losing the entire midrange business,
they need to recognize that an integrated, native GUI is crucial to
remaining viable.

-mark

--
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.

_________________________________________________________________
Krijg updates van je vrienden en blijf op de hoogte
http://home.live.com