RE: RE: WDSC 4.0 Machine Requirements

Mark

My frustration level is so high with this product that I guess I lashed out.

I was struck by the comment that if all you need to do is SEU, then forget
using WDSC. That's NOT what IBM is pushing. As Buck says, one of the
problems is that it's all or nothing.

I've had good email conversations with Violaine and others in Toronto. I
_really_ want to take advantage of the project management pieces (along
with cvs). They've suggested that the plan is, as you noted, to put
"legacy" (I hate that term) function fully into the IDE (I think and hope
that's what they've said). The project concept could let us bundle our
Windows components with our 400 components with ....

But I've had such problems with connectivity and performance, that I can't
recommend that we, as a small,
"can''t-afford-to-waste-much-time-on-limited-benefit" development company,
change from what we do now. We develop in C and CL on the 400, and with
Delphi for Windows presentation. We use whatever editor we know well for C
- not SEU - that's painful without prompting. You get no context-sensitive
help for keywords, either. Of course, you don't in TextPAd or CodeWright
either. MS' Visual C++ has help up the wazoo. With the demise of Visual Age
C++ for AS/400 we've lost the verification (pre-compile) function. CODE
seems focused on RPG & COBOL, but the Toronto team is at least listening to
me, for which I'm glad.

Cheers

Vern

At 09:45 AM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
>This is a multipart message in MIME format.
>--
>[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>Vern,
>
>Sorry I upset you.  Unfortunately, since you quoted my whole message, I
>cannot figure out what part upsets you so I can't follow up on it.  See
>the reply I just sent to Sam, perhaps it clarifies what you wanted
>clarified.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mark
> >
> >On the other hand, if all you need is SEU to do your development than you
> >shouldn't be using WDSc anyway.