Re: "EGL is the easiest langauge to learn" - Joe Pluta

Nathan,

We usually go to IBM for enhancements when the function is so common / expected (e.g. most of the RPG BIFs) or for a very efficient or certifiable implementation (e.g. crypto APIs) or when the task is a fairly large one or something that has a far reach under the covers (e.g. TCP/IP.)

I believe that a native GUI falls into several of the above categories. I'm sure that Joe Pluta, who has invested (probably) several man years in his GUI product can tell you that it is far from a trivial task to do.

-mark


At 4/29/08 05:24 PM, you wrote:

> M. Lazarus wrote:
> I agree. There's no technical reason that IBM can't provide
> a native GUI.

True. And a few years ago they published a direction statement saying
that they would look into it. But they studied it and decided against
it. Then they merged "i" and "p", and more RPG developers concluded
that IBM would probably never consider the native GUI idea again.

That's not my main reason for responding to this thread, though. My
main point is that RPG is extendable through service programs and if IBM
is not providing the type of interfaces you want, then you can write
your own. Some of us are doing that. Time is precious, of course. And
some may not have the time to build a native GUI interface. But some of
the resistance comes from attitude.

For all the "plumbing" that IBM has put into EGL, Joe is essentially
saying that EGL still needs extensions to RPG. Browsers need extensions
to RPG. And RPG needs extensions to RPG. My reason for responding is
to encourage developers to write extensions to RPG. IBM can't do
everything.

Nathan.