Re: Web Front End Advice

[Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Tom Liotta wrote:
> Jon Paris wrote:
> > I guess so Brad.  As soon as I found the toolkits my immediate 
> > reaction was "why did I waste my time" with the APIs.
> I'm on both sides of these opinions.

I followed this discussion and didn't reply because I too found myself 
on both sides, and both sides were well presented.  I think I began 
writing an ILE-based Web interface about the same time that CGIDEV2 came 
out, but I didn't know about it.  I sometimes wonder if I ever would 
have begun writing my own interface if I had known about Mel Rothman's 
work.  Now that I have my own I'm glad I did lay the groundwork myself, 
but there's also a good case for simply using the tools that are 
available.

I didn't think there was much risk in using CGIDEV2 because it was 
supported by IBM and licensed originally as "open source", although IBM 
evidently deterred from the open-source status.

It's interesting that proponents of learning low-level API's are also 
the same people who are building tools.  Tool vendors, of course need to 
know low-level APIs.  But what about application developers?  Wouldn't 
it make more sense to focus on applications?  Not tools?  I'm on both 
sides of that discussion too.  I build both tools and applications, but 
it's not always a great position to be in.  At some point I hope to 
focus most of my time on applications - not tools.

Nathan.


> CGIDEV (and CGIDEV2) is an interesting example for this discussion. 
> The storm that came out of IBM's handling of it -- IBM lawyers, 
> open/closed/proprietary-source status, Mel Rothman's and then Giovanni 
> Perotti's retirement and the rest -- has pretty much settled; but 
> there was a lot of nervousness going around. At least, among those 
> using CGIDEV/2 without understanding their internals, there was some 
> stress.
>
> For those who coded directly to the APIs and who weren't using 
> CGIDEV...? There was little reason even to pay attention to the storm.
>
> Toolkits are great resources. Yet, there is much to be said for 
> spending time with the APIs themselves.
>
> A toolkit or tool (WRKDBF? QUSRTOOLS and Y2K?) might disappear or 
> break at any time. A licensed product with a maintenance /contract/, 
> e.g., DBU or TAATOOLS, provides buffering; but the APIs always go 
> straight back to IBM for support, fixes and documentation.
>
> Whenever possible, I use the toolkits as learning resources and try to 
> minimize any production use. Burying a tool in production code can 
> leave a nasty surprise for some later developer. Learning and using 
> the appropriate APIs in appropriate ways can make a significant 
> difference for years after development is finished.
>
> Tom Liotta
>
> --
> Tom Liotta
> The PowerTech Group, Inc.
> 19426 68th Avenue South
> Kent, WA 98032
> Phone  253-872-7788 x313
>         253-479-1416
> Fax    253-872-7904
> http://www.powertech.com
>
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing 
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.