Re: Standard source file names?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

IBM has the power to make this experiment happen.
They could even do it without losing any money (by increasing the
price for the compilers to compensate).

Hmmm, the old practice of having revenue from one product subsidize the
development, marketing, and adoption of another. Not good for IBM, nor the
customer, IMHO.

We can agree to differ. I think it would be good for both IBM and for
the customer. Good for IBM in that it would enhance their brand.
Judging by the opinions of the overwhelming majority of RDi users, it
would be good for everyone if RDi's adoption rate were higher. And
it's hard to imagine the rate would actually go DOWN if it were
bundled, yet I think it's very plausible that the rate would go up.

How about the tried and true practice of having products stand or fall on
their own merits, without subsidies?

It sounds nice, but (a) it's not as tried and true as you seem to
think, and (b) sometimes you need to push something to get it going,
because people aren't ready for it. By (a) I mean that most companies
have some products that have a good margin and some that don't. If
you always just completely stop offering your less-than-best-margin
products, you will soon find yourself with very few products, in some
cases to the detriment of the business.

Why does anyone ever have a sale? Why can't products just stand on
their own merits?

But part of me dislikes bloated, over-engineered, PC-based IDEs.

What constitutes "bloat" changes over time, and of course from person to person.

I would prefer a thin, browser based IDE for IBM i application development.

Hate to break it to you, Nathan, but the very browser you are using (I
don't care which one it is) is bloated and over-engineered. And you
want to run an IDE on top of *it*?

John Y.