Re: Vendor presentations

Jim, I'm not taking anyone to task.  Eric's statement was, as you've
indicated, a vendor response to a specific question which has historically
been acceptable here in David's lists.

The only part I objected to was when he started enumerating the reasons why
RPG-CGI is superior to "Java".  Among my many reasons is that a JSP Model II
approach uses almost zero Java; certainly nothing more complicated than what
most web solution vendors use in their own JavaScript.  But to go into that
particular discussion in the same thread as the vendor's product has a
tendency to turn the thread into a discussion of the product rather than the
architecture.

Anyway, enough said.  No offense meant, just wanted to clear up my position.

Joe

> From: Jim Franz
>
> Joe - I posted the response for Eric after Bob's statements left it
> unclear
> as to who owned which product. At the time he was not properly registered
> on the list. The words are Eric's, but I made it clear
> that a sales pitch is not allowed. I do beleive that other vendors,
> including yourself,
> have made statements defining their products, and defining major
> differences. I've learned
> a lot from previous posts by yourself and others when studying products.
> To indicate a product generates java vs rpg is not a sales pitch by just
> that statement
> of fact.