Re: 520 pricing structure

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:08:23 -0500
 "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Brad Stone
> >
> > Impossible.  MI.  Keep using outrageous terms and
> > comparisons to prove your point, Joe.
> 
> I insist that except for the mot trivial of applications,
> straight CGI
> with no templates is impossible to maintain in a
> production shop.  Do
> you disagree?

We're not talking about that... and no, it's not
impossible.  I did it for a couple years as did many
readers of my books.  I still get emails to this day about
success stories using plain RPG-CGI.  

While in the back of my mind I'm screaming "get CGIDEV2 or
the eRPG SDK!" I don't... because they are happy.  I
mention it in passing (ie "you may be interested in
this...") but I don't push it on them or try to cram it
down their throats.

Just like calculus, when you learn how to do something "the
hard way" you understand and can do it better "the easy
way" when that time comes.

Templates make it 10000x times easier, though.  


> 
> 
> > Let's just say the difference was negligable.  I'd be
> happy
> > to run them again.  Just let me know what other
> specifics
> > you'd like besides 100% load before I do it.
> 
> That's it.  Just make sure you're testing the actual code
> that generates
> HTML, not the HTTP transmission or any other part of it.
>  Just one piece
> at a time.

I am.  That's exactly how I do it... beginning of program
execution to the end.  The TIME opcode is your friend.

> 
> 
> > But that's "only" startup... nothing else...  I mean,
> > switching from page to page in the admin server taking
> 2
> > minutes... that's negligable.
> 
> What does the admin server have to do with this
> conversation, Brad?  The
> admin server is using crazy stuff like EJBs.  I've seen
> some really bad
> RPG-CGI sites, too.

Bad or slow?  That's two different things.  One is the
knowledge and use of web design tools, the other is the
programming vehicle that gets it there and programing
ability...  Using RPG doesn't make it "bad" or slow.

IBM went from bad to worse when the changed the net.data
(which still exists in their apps) to Java...  

But at least bad RPG CGI isn't as bad as this stuff.  :)

> 
> 
> > Ok..  let's make this simple.  Hits do mean something
> > because App A may take 2 seconds, and app B may take 10
> > (500 hits).  If you have a busy site, I know I'd rather
> > take app A because I don't want my CPUs eaten up.
> 
> The typical overhead on "hits" has little to do with the
> UI.  Usually
> the most time is spent in transmission, followed by the
> time spent in
> database access.  Actual UI formatting is usually only a
> small portion
> of the entire job.  That's why measuring the performance
> of UI
> processing as a function of hits is roughly equivalent to
> measuring the
> performance of two hammers as the function of putting up
> a high-rise
> apartment.
> 
> If you want to do an architectural benchmark, focus on a
> specific
> portion of the cycle.  Otherwise, you're just doing an
> application
> benchmark, and then you need to have something other than
> a trivial
> application to measure.

As I said before, I was.  All my apps did was iterate
through a loop x times, replacing a variable in the
template with the value of the counter.   

All the other stuff is web server and TCPIP which has
nothing to do with Java or RPG used as a web/cgi tool.


> 
> 
> > > The overhead from a JVM is almost entirely at startup
> > > time.  Said
> > > overhead becomes negligible after a servlet is
> loaded,
> > > and actually
> > > becomes less as the UI (the JSP) gets compiled to
> machine
> > > code.
> > > Eventually the servlet will outperform the RPG.
> > >
> > 
> > Bullsh*t.  Even you know that (but I'm sure we'll hear
> > differently).  Especially for each job that starts to
> > handle more jobs... which means another JVM startup.
> 
> Wow.  No wonder you can't get servlets to perform.  You
> don't understand
> how they work.  A single JVM handles all the requests
> from an instance
> through multithreading.  No extra jobs get started up.

One job handles every request...  the web server never
starts another one?  Ever?

> 
> 
> > You first say they're close in performance (JSPs being
> a
> > little behind), then that a servlet (I thought we were
> > talking JSPs) will outperform...
> 
> Again, I'm taken aback at how little you know about the
> topic.  JSPs ARE
> servlets, Brad.  A JSP is converted into a servlet.  The
> servlet is
> compiled into bytecode.  Finally, the bytecode is
> compiled into native
> code by the JIT compiler.

I do know that....  But that's like saying ICE is water and
we were talking about ice.

Thanks for explaining that though.. I can see how there
would be no overhead in all that work.  :)


> 
> > No, the point is I don't need to.  Only those network
> > admins that fell it's necessary or want something to do
> > NEED to do it.
> 
> If you want to put your iSeries in the DMZ, that's your
> business.  Some
> people won't want to.  And with RPG-CGI, that's
> impossible.

I don't need a DMZ if my routing is set up properly.  RPg
CGI  has NOTHING to do with being able to be place
something in a DMZ or not.
> 
> 
> > Ya, dude... like I really seriously meant Dell is what
> you
> > wanted to buy.  Get real, man.  Quit arguing crap like
> this
> > to try and prove a point.  Your "screaming" linux box
> is no
> > more powerful than a $500 Dell.  I've built and bought
> > quite a few PCs... and these days you don't save much
> > building over buying...
> 
> I have no idea what the point of this paragraph is.  You
> brought up
> Dell, not me.  I simply said that a $500 FreeBSD box is
> quite powerful.
> I think you need to take a little breather and answer the
> questions
> posed.  For example, what load level do you think that
> $500 box could
> not handle?

No, I made a sarcastic comment about Dell and a cheap PC,
which you used as a serious comment to try and prove a
point.  

I've worked with very large companies for years and I've
seen the biggest server farms get crippled by something an
smaller iSeries could handle without skipping a beat.  A
single $500 PC will handle decent volume, but start adding
DB access to that and it quickly drops.  I myself run
apache on a very powerful PC (powerful compared to your
description of a $500 PC) as well as another server on a
old slow 170... the 170 easily outperforms the PC.

> 
> 
> > > > I would be happy to name my procedures the same as
> > > CGIDEV2
> > > > or others, but there are subtle differences in my
> > > > procedures and how they function with the product.
> > >
> > > Thank you for making my point more clearly than even
> I
> > > could have.
> > 
> > Your sarcastic statement here proves nothing.
> 
> It proves that if I use CGIDEV2, I have to learn
> something different to
> use e-RPG, and something yet again different to use Bob's
> package.  And,
> unlike JSP and Java, none of them are being taught in any
> school on the
> planet.

No, because any programmer worth their weight should
understand what it takes to do what they want, and finding
the correct procedure should be child's play.  The same way
they should be able to move from language to language.

If you know the core functionalities of web programming,
language, toolkit or platform is only a small portion of
the puzzle.

"Coders" on the other hand, I could see how it would be an
issue.  

If someone doesn't understand Cgi, HTML, Javascript, SSIs,
etc.. they'll have just as much trouble with JSPs.
 Probably more.

> 
> 
> > So that would mean that because I don't need to access
> DB's
> > natively in JSPs/Java but I may want to, it's a flaw in
> > that architecture?
> 
> Actually, yes, a flaw in a pure JSP architecture is that
> you cannot
> access data natively.  That's why I believe the very best
> architecture
> is JSP for UI and RPG for business logic.
> 
> 
> > Ya, and we RPGers are still not flipping burgers.
>  Again,
> > your comparison here has nothing to do with the facts
> at
> > hand... it's all opinion.  Calling RPG a dumb tube and
> JSP
> > a PC means nothing to anyone except those who can't
> think
> > for themselves.  It also doesn't prove your point.
> 
> You say "we RPGers" as if I'm not one.  That's almost
> fanatical... those
> who don't agree with you must be the enemy.  But that dog
> don't hunt
> here, Brad.  I continue to say that RPG is the best
> business rules
> processing language available.  It's just one of the
> worst possible
> languages for HTML processing.  I don't compare RPG to a
> dumb tube.  I
> compare RPG-CGI to a dumb tube.

Either or...  if you are an RPGer, then you are included in
We... don't assume I was leaving you out.. you have
mentioned many times how you value RPG lately...  I'm just
defending it all the way, even for web interfaces.  Which
doesn't mean that I think it's the only way.

Again... it's the vehicle to present web pages we're
talking about here...  I don't feel the need to complicate
things with JSPs.  You feel it's not a complication.  We'll
never agree, you'll always try and dumb RPG CGI down but in
the end, we all create nice HTML web pages that to "us" are
easy to create and maintain.

> 
> You can't turn this into Joe vs. RPG; I love RPG. 

Oh please....  guess I'll go eat worms.  LOL.

> I just
> think that
> RPG-CGI is a bad architecture and a dead end from a
> strategic
> standpoint.  There are a certain small number of
> companies for whom
> RPG-CGI makes good business sense despite those
> shortcomings, but it
> will always be an architecturally deficient solution.

And I feel the opposite.  I'd say more shops benifit from
RPG-CGI than not simply because it's their knowledge base.
 It's in NO means a dead end.. if anything it's a stepping
stone should a team choose to move to a different
architecture.

I've dealt with clients to date...  most say the same
thing, end up giving RPG a shot and kick themselves for not
trying it before.

And I make zero money helping these customers do this..
Well, if they bought one of my books I make a couple bucks
.. :)  Up until recently I pushed CGIDEV2 on them.  If they
wanted my eRPG SDK, then fine.  But I never pushed it on
them.  I presented it (as well as your tools) as an option.

Who you should be fighting is IBM and the websfear guys who
are giving Java a bad name... LOL! 

Brad