Re: Adoption of RPG OA

[Scott Klement <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To begin with, it was something that could be accomplished (however 
awkwardly) using subprocedures instead of F-specs.  Second, IBM chose to 
charge extra for it and release it separately.  People evaluate it on 
whether it has/hasn't caught on, because it's not part of RPG, it's a 
whole separate product. Then, there's the controversy about whether (or 
not) an F-spec type file is really a good way to interact with a modern 
interface.  And, finally, a lot of the community has struggled to get to 
IBM i 6.1 or higher (vendor software hard to get for 6.1 for a long 
time, development tools more expensive, object conversion required), and 
IBM stupidly didn't make OA available for 5.4.

Barbara and her team did a fantastic job on the technical aspects of it 
(IMHO), but as far as the business/sales/marketing point of view, IBM 
has screwed it up in pretty much every way.


On 3/10/2011 8:49 PM, Lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> RPG OA came out with a bang a year ago, and several vendors announced
> tools, some of which looked very good.  But it seems to have been
> relatively quiet since.  (Not to disparage articles by several people on
> the list and discussions here...)
>
> But has there been any adoption of RPG OA and the 3rd party vendor
> handlers and tools?  Is there a market developing that will sustain the
> vendors?  Anyone actually using a 3rd party handler, or even installed
> one for evaluation?
>
> Sam