Re: Classes for IBMi/iSeries?

Charles,

Good points there. I no longer have a V1R1 OS/400 system running but I'm quite sure that the signon screen shipped on that guy was pretty much byte for byte what is today on the latest IBM i 7.1. It does not HAVE to be of course as you can change it but it usually is. That's what the users see first too. And this is compounded when management won't allow things to be done in other ways.

This might not work for you but I have seen several developers 'go rogue' and just build something better. Not usually something big but start with something. In the early days one guy at a customer actually used the mouse for menes on the infowindow terminals. It didn't go anywhere but management said: "It can do that? Cool." Today it would almost certainly be a 'web something'. You choose the language but do something with a 'wow factor' such as graphics or charts. Something where the current output is numbers that scream for visuals. I am reminded of the current commercial for live football on your cell phone. The guy in the airport is asked by the 'fairy' "What are you doing?" and he says: "Watching the game." They show the screen and it's a box score. Boooooooring. Then the 'fairy' puts the live game on his phone. Very cool.

I am also reminded of a past position where I was always told to do something a certain way because "The owner wants it that way." After doing it that way for a year I finally just went to the owner and asked him if I could do it a better way and if he had issues with that. His response: "That wasn't ME that said that. That was completely misinterpreted!" So I changed, took some heat from people claiming "The president wants it this other way!" (because they didn't want to change) In the end the biggest benefit was open discussion about change and better ways to do things.

So in many cases we have met the enemy and he's in the mirror!

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis



On 9/29/2011 11:14 AM, Charles Wilt wrote:

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.