Re: WDSC vs. RDi

Joe Pluta wrote:

Whoa, whoa, whoa - this is an argument that doesn't need to happen! I'm not trying to change your perspective, just pointing out that your perspective doesn't include the bulk of what was in WDSC.

I understand ... and all I'm trying to point out is that, what you
consider to be the bulk of WDSC, is _largely_ unimportant to a System i host application developer.

And see, this is a new phrase: "System i host application developer".
It's a euphemism for green screen developer, and it's something I thought we were trying to get rid of, and that's really my point.

"System i host application" just means applications that run on the host. This means green screen, host servers, CGI apps, java servers, etc.

One of my jobs is that of System i host application developer ... I
haven't worked on a program that interfaced via the green screen in
years (or generated a printout for that mater). All the code I've written that's intended to run on a System i host is either RPG or Java as a server.

WDSC made web development tools available to the System i developer without pigeon-holing him into the green screen role. I thought this
was a great step forward for System i development in general,
because it gave green screen dinosuars like me a free set of tools -
and more importantly, tutorials and samples - to allow me to extend
my skill set. The unbundling of the RDi package negates that.

I don't disagree with this ... but I suspect that the fact is largely
lost of _most_ System i developers.

If IBM really wants the System i community to move towards host server /
web application development, as apposed to green screen, then they should re-include the web tooling.

'course if someone in the Eclipse community could create a good web
editor for Eclipse 3.2, then we could just install that plug-in in RDi
and ignore the fact that IBM removed it :)

david