Re: Lansa vs. Plex -- MIDRANGE-L

Reeve,

I agree with all your points. To clarify what I meant for "a place for all
these tools" is that different companies need different tools at different
times. The right tool for one company is not the same as another - in every
case, so having a wide set of products available means an individual company
can find what fits their current requirements, product biases, skill sets
and of course, quality.

Trevor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reeve Fritchman" <reeve@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Lansa vs. Plex


> <snip>
> > I think the biggest misunderstanding in this thread is that we are all
so
> > familiar with green programming tools, that anything that takes us
beyond
> > that, into the web or multiple platforms can be a little difficult to
> > understand from our singular iSeries perspective. There is a place for
all
> > of these tools. You can gain a huge advantage in developing new
> applications
> > from scratch with tools like Lansa/web. And there is a place for
> > non-intrusive webfacing and extending tools like newlook and centric.
> There
> > is even a place for tools that allow you to remain solid in your green
> > screen skill set forever.
> >
> > The solution is harder to uncover in this forum, since most of us are
> biased
> > towards our own technology knowledge, and the business reasons for
moving
> > forward are often ignored here.
> >
> > Trevor
> </snip>
>
> Trevor, you've made a number of good points.  But the biggest problem is
> economics: "There is a place for all these tools" is true, but we're not
> often in that place.  We're usually somewhere else, and getting to the
right
> place is time-consuming and costly even if it is the "right" place to be.
> If you watch this list, you see a litany of complaints regarding technical
> managers disallowing the use of newfangled technology and executives
> unwilling to invest in education or reasonably current hardware/OS's.
Maybe
> Cassius was right!
>
> I looked at one heavily-hyped product hyped tossing phrases like
"Developing
> browser applications without retraining is now a reality".  Yeah, right: I
> tossed my cookies after I saw what it was: an expensive RPG toolkit
> requiring nuts-and-bolds knowledge of RPG and HTML (actually it requires
> "nuts and Boldt's" knowledge of RPG), which a large number of customers
> don't have.  Reading their hysterical e-mail'ed spam-vertisements makes
you
> think you've stumbled onto the solution for whorled peas.
>
> I don't think the problem is our bias towards our own technical knowledge;
> it's a prejudice against what we don't know, what we can't control (when
the
> application is down, the decision-makers aren't reviewing the business
case
> to go with the cheapest solution or with the best-looking vendor: they're
> lighting up employees' cell phones in every time zone) and the
> one-size-fits-all solution offered by so many vendors.
>
> Although I'll regret announcing this publicly, I'm looking for an
extending
> tool.  Maybe I should be looking for a new development tool, but I'm not
> losing business to GUI-type systems (I'm winning business from them).
> Unfortunately I haven't found a new development or extending tool without
an
> unacceptably-high number of compromises, and it's not practical to put a
> couple of talented, hard-working, and expensive people off in a room for a
> couple of years only to have one or more technologies change just as we
pass
> the period of peak investment in what had been the latest-and-greatest.
Of
> course you can't always be current, and that's not an excuse to move
ahead,
> but when you make an investment you want a return from it.  And if
Websphere
> is IBM's direction, I'm looking elsewhere.
>
> Now it's likely some of what I perceive as a "compromise" is related to my
> own prejudices for reliability, flexibility, and stability.  But my
> prejudices are my requirements: cost is not an issue <big>if</big> the
> product does the job.  IMHO, quality is *always* the best economy, for me
> and for my customers.
>
> -reeve