Re: Classes for IBMi/iSeries?

Trevor,

I don't disagree with your point...I'll even agree that part of the
problem is us developers ( and/or management that won't allow us to do
anything but AS/400 5250 ;)

But I'm thinking about sign-on screens, command lines, ect...stuff
outside the application programs...

Heck even the terminals and the hardware itself...

It just seems that It's really easy for the users to see a difference
between S/36, S/38 and AS/400...than it is to see the difference
between AS/400 and POWER.

Not surprising given that the face of the OS/400 v1r1 is no different
than the face of IBM i 7.1...

Image Intel trying to rebrand the Personal Computer with every new
generation of CPU...

Or Microsoft trying to rebrand new versions of Windows without
changing the UI...

Charles

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Trevor Perry <trevor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Charles,

If a programmer kept coding using the same S/36 green screen standards on
an AS/400, then you could see no obvious differences. It was only if you
adopted new techniques, new standards, and new coding approaches that you
might see an obvious difference. Even today, there are programmers who
write code that produces screens that look exactly like S/36 screens.

Now, take that to IBM i. If I continue to write AS/400 code on the IBM i,
then there will be no apparent difference. The problem is that you ~can~,
and the second problem is that many many RPG programmers still ~do~.

There are many obvious differences if you adopt the latest IBM i
techniques. PHP, Systems Director, RPG Open Access, RD Power, and so on.

But you have to (a) know about them, (b) learn about them, (c) adopt them.
Trevor



On 9/29/11 10:20 AM, "Charles Wilt" <charles.wilt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But my understanding, and I've never used a S/36 or S/38), is that
from a green screen user's perspective, there's obvious differences
between S/36, S/38 and AS/400....

Now compare that to the difference's between AS/400, iSeries, System
i, POWER running IBM i...

It's no wonder the users still call it AS/400!

Charles

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Trevor Perry <trevor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jerry,

It was not quite clear.

Did you call the AS/400 a S/36, because it could run S/36 applications?
Did you call the AS/400 a S/38, because it could run S/38 applications?

If the answer is yes, then calling IBM i an AS/400 is the same thing.
If no, then...
Do you call IBM i an AS/400 because it can run AS/400 applications?

--
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.

--
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.