RE: DFTACTGRP(*NO) ACTGRP(*NEW)

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Haas, Matt
>
> This is a little short sighted, isn't it? Do you really think
> that we'd be able to talk management into switching from, say JD
> Edwards, to someone else just because they don't use RPG IV? I
> think this suggestion would be good for a laugh and that's about it.

No, but if your management is content to stay with a vendor that won't move
to RPG IV and won't pressure the vendor, then your management has little
concern for advanced architecture, and you should probably just forget about
ILE in your workplace.

Also, vendors that don't go to ILE are also unlikely to be concerned about
the future and hence are unlikely to survive into the future, so unless
you're willing to stick with an orphan system, then you might want to review
your vendor choice.

This is not short sighted.  Staying with something that is not going to
evolve is short sighted, unless as I said you don't plan on doing any
innovation.  And if that's the case, why bother with ILE in the first place?

And please, don't take this to mean that shops with old systems are bad -
just that shops running old S/38 code (or RPG III) are less likely to be
able to take full advantage of ILE, and are far more likely to run into
unnecessary AG-related problems.

Joe