Well stated Jim.
Even if it's not used by all shops it rounds out the technology stacks.
Regards,
Richard Schoen
Web:
http://www.richardschoen.net
Email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phn: (612) 315-1745
------------------------------
message: 5
date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:21:31 -0500
from: "Jim Oberholtzer" <midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: Mono on IBM i - Porting Mono to AIX and IBM i
I have several customers with strong IBM i / POWER infrastructures in their data center. Several of them have hired younger development managers who are asking why use this RPG "stuff" when I can use "___ fill in blank___"
My answer is always to keep DB2 and use RPG or existing languages for the business logic, or at least the heavy logic, and build APIs in RPG/SQL. Use whatever makes you happy for the user interface. Mono fills in quite a gap in the arsenal and makes the system more attractive to more organizations. Richard will argue that .Net with Visual Studio is the or nearly the best development environment available, and I must agree with that assessment. So, adding Mono to the bag of tricks is vital in my view.
--
Jim Oberholtzer
Agile Technology Architects
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Justin Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:50 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Mono on IBM i - Porting Mono to AIX and IBM i
Perfectly valid question. I think most of the FOSS dev options are to attract/assist people who already know those environments. For an i-native dev, why should they use option "x" instead of RPG? The answer I hear most often is to utilize existing utilities/libraries. I guess that depends on the kind of work you do. Virtually everything I do is so specific, everything has to be custom anyway.
(You could insert a different traditional language instead of RPG, but RPG is pretty much synonymous with IBMi.)
midrange.com
