Well, that argument only holds water if there's parity in productivity. I think IBMs argument is "IDE based development increases developer productivity", and I agree (mostly). Now, how much can be charged for a toolset that improves productivity?
Now, with WDSCi, we have a toolset already gaining momentum in the community, that offers similar gains to productivity as RDi, and is freely available to all WDS users.... IBM's in a tough position here, and I understand why they want to close the door on WDSC, but I believe there shoule be tier-based entitlements to the new tools as IBM is doing for ADTS. Remove the roadblocks, and offer one seat of RDi-SOA with the WDS entitlement, and perhaps an option to convert ADTS seats to RDi.
JMO,
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Tommy.Holden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:39 PM
To: Websphere Development Studio Client for iSeries
Cc: wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx; wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] ADTS V6R1 - No SEU updates?
i agree....why should we have to pay for updated/replacement tool that is
free? if SEU continues to be "fixed" for newer syntax instead of pushing
folks to go to a GUI based IDE then how can we convince the business
owners that we need to pay additonal charges? if they want to get rid of
something s/36 would be high on my list....not development tools.
Thanks,
Tommy Holden
Jon Paris <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
02/14/2008 01:34 PM
Please respond to
Websphere Development Studio Client for iSeries <wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To
wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [WDSCI-L] ADTS V6R1 - No SEU updates?
On 14-Feb-08, at 11:39 AM, wdsci-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Be careful defining the term "Stabilized, Jon. George specifically
called WDSC "stabilized", and by that he meant no changes whatsoever
other than bug fixes.
I was being careful Joe - the normal meaning of stabilized in IBM is
fixes only - possibly more careful than George was <grin>. When a
fundamental change is made (e.g. the addition of a new data type to
DDS or a change in language syntax) then stabilized tools either have
to offer a low-level accommodation of the change (as will happen when
new data types are introduced) or reject it in an organized way.
With SEU they have followed normal policy and updated the syntax
checker. With WDSC they have not. Two tools - same status -
different approach.
Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favor of everybody switching to
RDi - the tools have to make money if we are to see progress. But
enabling SEU and not WDSC in my opinion was a poor choice. To enable
WDSC to use the RDi syntax checker/verifier should have been a
trivial task the two tools are fundamentally the same. Updating it
for SEU was almost certainly a lot more more work.
If RDi was a no-charge option this would not be an issue - but since
it has a charge people have to have time to budget for that. If I
have updated my compilers and everything else to V6 then I should be
able to use it. It makes no sense to support it in a 20 year old
tool and not in a 5 year old tool - particularly when the two tools
are so closely aligned.
Jon Paris
www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
midrange.com
