|
I think it's more likely Rochester's changing because of the influx of younger folks with heavy exposure to PC architecture and little, if any, exposure to mainframes. Back in the 70's, I coded CCP (CICS on the System/3) and rejoiced when the System/38 was announced (fortunately I avoided the False Prophet of the System/34). While CICS and CCP are efficient for simple transactions, developing a program for a complex transaction is much more difficult in that environment. And those techniques were developed at a time when hardware and communications resources were extremely slow and extremely expensive. Yes, they're efficient from a hardware standpoint because they had to be...back then, CFINT was really hardware: core memory and small, slow disks. Today CFINT is software. The issues today are application flexibility and programmer skills/resources. Notwithstanding a variety of tools available today, I don't see application development, particularly when using PRUF-type coding, getting any easier and I don't see a lot of iSeries programmers boosting their professional skills to meet the challenge. Maybe I need more education and it's likely I need to find the right development tools. But, if application redesign is required, the big question is if the iSeries, or OS/400, is the right target platform. There's no question in my mind that the Karmic wheel is turning on the iSeries. Somebody in IBM has a Post-It with a notation: "Kill the iSeries". Those of us, er, those of /you/, with modern application designs (UI separated from business logic, etc.) will survive. For everybody else, Y2K will seem like a picnic. -----Original Message----- From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Paul Raulerson Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 8:37 PM To: midrange-l@midrange.com Subject: Re: CFINT: I understand it now... I don't agree with this chain of thought. In fact, server applications when well designed, are very efficient. Interactive programs can be very efficient, but in an AS/400 environment, they are nowhere near as efficient as say, CICS applications. (Even given that AS/400 interactive applications are probably more efficient that anything else out there except for old Wang VS programs.... ;) I was talking to someone yesterday who mentioned this debate going on, and after reading the past 400 or so messages on the subject, I think we are all missing some crucial point of logic. I *think* it may be that the people in Rochester are slowing being replaced by people from mainframe backgrounds, who just have a really different train of thought than pure midrange people. Batch processing is a different animal entirely on a mainframe than an interactive application. In fact, programs like TSO and CICS on a mainframe are a single 'batch' application that just happens to provide interactive services. The CFINT thing, well, it sort of makes sense from a mainframe point of view - and there is no doubt at all that IBM is in a STRONG push to unify their product line. -Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@leif.org> To: <midrange-l@midrange.com> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: Re: CFINT: I understand it now... > From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com> > > From: Reeve Fritchman > > It's simple: compared to 5250 applications, server applications > > are grossly inefficient. > > In what way? In fact, a well written server program is far MORE efficient > than a traditional monolithic green screen application. > > ===> I think you are overstating the point here. They are about the > same when talking processing efficiency. The server approach is > far MORE efficient when it comes to maintenance, but that is not > the issue here. > > Let us assume for a moment that everybody went where 'IBM > wants them to go' and converted everything to run client/server. > That would remove the CFINT revenue and if as some (e.g. > Jon Pais) have claimed that revenue is essential to the viability > of the platform, then the platform will die when everybody is > doing client/server. The only saving grace is that doing client/ > server may require a lot more processing power forcing people > to buy bigger boxes thus enhancing IBM's revenue to offset the > CFINT tax, > > If as you say, server programs are far MORE efficient, people > can get by with smaller boxes further eroding IBM's revenue > and thus the viability of the platform. I think I may be missing > something here, but I can't see what. > > > > _______________________________________________ > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l. > > _______________________________________________ This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
