Hello John,
Am 06.03.2020 um 20:29 schrieb John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>:
It is hard for me to imagine a "new project" which can't be done easily on other platforms.
Me also. But I'm not fluent enough in all the webby stuff going on on i to really *know*. At least I guess there must be something equivalent to the easiness of DDS for 5250, but for building cool looking web pages with equally low effort. That's not really "can't be done" but "can't be done with not too much effort", though.
And once you are talking about *existing* IBM i stuff, then we're back to RPG being relevant, as you said yourself in a later comment.
Yes, true.
In any event, it's a close enough approximation to just say Rexx is irrelevant everywhere.
Good summarisation of a detailed view. I agree.
I agree that new projects on the IBM i don't *need* to involve RPG or CL.
Yes, that was what I wanted to point out.
programmers already skilled in C and C++ *are* available and it's "just" a matter of raising interest in about there's more than Linux and Windows.
Yes, there's also iOS and Android. ;)
Aaah, this cursed mobile stuff. ;-)
But I can't tell whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with Rob that it probably doesn't do much good for IBM to make IBM i systems as inexpensive and accessible to the general public as Linux, Windows, and Mac.
Oh. Completely different topic. :-) There are arguments for it as well as arguments against it.
I'm still staying true to my point that the easy creation of fast green screen apps is a major pro for the platform. (Especially after starting to learn how to do it with KICKS4TSO on MVS, which is supposed to be not very different from CICS even today.) I know, my point isn't universally relevant. But as Holger pointed out, I'm not the only one working quietly on green screen apps. So, there seems clearly to be a niche for inexpensive i offers for *very* small companies/shops, on hardware matching the needs of such small shops: Small footprint, small power draw from mains, silent. Even small performance would be perfectly okay. When I'm doing stuff with my 800, I'd say, this is by far fast enough for *many* green screen and maybe some webby tasks. Bundled with an affordable IBM i license for a low user count, but fully web licensed and without crippled 5250 performance as they once tried to sell as "server".
On the other hand, if IBM starts to "sell out" stuff for cheap, that could send a false signal to the community: IBM decided to go cheap! That can only mean they no longer care about the fabulous quality which was already established with the AS/400 and continues with it's descendant today. From a software *and* from a hardware point of view. And I'd agree with this fear. IBM wants to generate revenue. If stuff must be cheaper, where can costs be most easily cut? Quality.
(But seen from another angle, these quiet people could also use Holger's services to have their own LPAR with backups and service (PTFs), for a fee. Of course. No initial monetary invest, no power, no noise, no hassle with backups, etcpp.)
His argument seems to be: Even if people could buy IBM i systems cheaply, that wouldn't do much to increase the mindshare or talent pool of the platform. (I agree with this.)
Yes, I also agree with this, to a certain extent.
Windows is so omnipresent because Microsoft was very aggressive in the 1990s to make it known to everybody. Linux has become common as a server OS very quietly over the last 25 years or so, because admins in companies simply rolled it out (often nobody cared, since no cost is involved) until, surprise, surprise, the Web isn't about IIS on Windows anymore. LAMP became a de-facto standard. In short: It's about reaching a critical mass to make the word spread itself.
If the mass is big enough, even a tiny fraction of it will be enthusiasts. This is not very different than today with IBM i. Some of us like it for different reasons. Enthusiasts on Linux are the ones who programmed a lot of stuff for it. Enthusiasts on IBM i will most likely be the ones who program a lot of stuff for it. Apart from huge business solutions but most likely a lot of smaller tools to solve special problems. Good Example: Taskwarrior (
https://taskwarrior.org), a niche project but obviously successful enough to stay relevant enough for the guys to continue development. Besides, that's what I had in mind when I was talking about new projects.
That feels weird to me. If we are talking about programmers, I don't know that they really "look at the platform" too much. I'm sure some do, but in general, I think programmers are more concerned about the nature of the work, not the platform.
Yes, you're right. But I also think it also depends on personal preference, and their state of enthusiasm for the platform, of course.
That is, I think most programmers are saying "I would love to work on such-and-such a problem". Or "I would love to work at such-and-such a company". And not so much "I would love to work on such-and-such a platform".
I'm sure there are also such, let's say, high level programmers (caring about solutions and not about platforms). I'm not knowing enough people programming for a living but these few I know actually are somewhere in the middle between both positions.
(Honestly, I know some guys how are like "if you really *know* how to divide a problem in small steps to feed to a computer to build a solution, the exact programming language is mostly a matter of personal taste than a functional decision (aka, can't be done with language foobar)."
I would use different words, but essentially yes, the exact programming language doesn't matter too much, from a technical point of view.
Honestly, I struggled how to ut this thought into words. How would you word this statement?
:wq! PoC
PGP-Key: DDD3 4ABF 6413 38DE -
https://www.pocnet.net/poc-key.asc
midrange.com
