Greetings, Been fun catching up on this discussion. Saw Jon's post and
he says it so well.
We, IBM have tried, we have delivered a number of options that were
largely ignored or not liked for a variety of reasons. Many of the reason
very valid. When it comes to the world of user interfaces, its a
fascinating topic. Because the purpose of a UI is to interact with the
user, and these user are normally humans, and humans all have different
needs, likes, and tastes, there really can't be a single solution to make
everyone happy. Anything that IBM were to deliver would be the classic '1
size fits none' . Over the past almost 10 years now, we have really
taken the approach to provide the variety and diversity that our user
need. Provide alternative. In addition, as there are companies that are
experts in Human interaction, we have worked closely with many of them to
help them succeed. What features on the IBM i do they need to meet the
needs of the User Interface. This is where we have delivered a diversity
of language, many ways to connect these languages to IBM i objects,
databases and programs. Things like Open Access for example.
One of the points that I find interesting, there is a concern about not
having the User Interface tightly integrated, and because of that, folks
are moving their applications to other platform. Where...the User
interfaces is also not integrated. But its even better...neither is the
database, security, job management and such.
Bottom line, modern applications, both backend code, data, and user
interface are very important to the IBM i team and we continue to focus on
improving how our IBM i community deals with this.
Thanks Tim
Tim Rowe, timmr@xxxxxxxxxx
Business Architect Application Development & Systems Management for IBM i
IBM i Development Lab, Rochester, MN
(507) 253-6191 (Tie) 553-6191
[1]
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/i/are/index.html
message: 1
date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:31:07 -0500
from: Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: Moving from Green screen app to GUI because of push back
I've said this before but I'll repeat it here.
IBM have tried to give us what you ask for - several times. In the
free/low-cost arena PHP, Python, node.js, VARPG, CGIDEV2, and EGL to
name just a few. Not to mention Websphere/JSPs etc.
What _we_ have proven over and over again is that, by and large, we will
ignore what IBM pushes for a variety of reasons. Many of those reasons
are valid, many are excuses. Nothing has changed that would make that
outcome any different with any future offerings.
The thing that surprises me most about requests like this (and I'm not
getting at you Mark because you have expressed a widely held belief) is
that there is ZERO reason to believe that anything different would
happen if IBM did come out with some mystical magical "fully integrated"
(whatever that means) support. In part it hasn't worked in the past
because there is no one requirement - everybody's wants/needs are
different. IBM has attempted to produce one-size-fits-all offerings (EGL
being the most ambitious) all have finished up on the floor. Even Open
Sourcing couldn't save EGL.
In my opinion the best solution is the one that we have. If I was to
change anything it would be for ISVs to offer a free (or really
low-cost) version of their tooling and (if we really want to dream)
perhaps IBM even sponsoring such a scheme with a few dollars. For
example, I use a tool (PHPGrid) for quickly building database driven PHP
apps. It costs me something like $250 a year. Cheap enough? I'd be
thrilled if IBM would sponsor Rogue to include this in every PHP
delivery. I think it would make be very useful for many people.
If you think about it, IBM could sponsor a lot of ISV software with just
a fraction of the multi-millions of dollars it would cost for them to
build something new.
Jon Paris
www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
> On Dec 12, 2017, at 10:39 PM, mlazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I was discussing this subject recently with a very respected member of
this group. We were both confused how turning over a crucial, and I do
mean crucial to the longevity of the system, piece of creating a modern
UI is turned over to third party vendors instead of being fully
integrated and included in the OS.
>
> Some vendors have done an admirable job creating a product, but IMHO,
it's ridiculous to have to pay a large bundle extra to get what should
be included and easily integrated into the system. It is also more
expensive to develop using (at least) some of these tools. My estimate
is at least 25% longer to develop and test.
>
> I have three clients that are jumping ship to a PC based platform,
another that has already gone in that direction (they used to have the
largest AS/400 config in the US northeast (which included 14 AS/400's)
and another is in the midst of moving part of their operation to a PC
based cloud system. I haven't heard of a new member to the midrange
fold in a long time. I would imagine that they exist, but I think that
20+ years after the GUI became popular, for IBM not to include this
required functionality, plus the GUI development tools as part of the
base OS, is just plain foolish.
>
> No offense to the tool vendors, but I believe that this functionality
is best integrated at a low level in the OS, not as a generic API in
order to get the best integration, debugging and performance.
>
> -mark
>
> On 12/12/2017 10:44 AM, Tim Rowe wrote:
>> Yes!! Moving from Green Screen to a Mobile or Web based interface
is
>> being requested by many. Not just your either. In todays world
its really
>> becoming a necessity. That is one of the reasons that the IBM i
team has
>> been investing in Open Technologies that are being created to
interface
>> with our existing back end programs. Its why we have REST Api
engines that
>> are delivered with the operating system. To allow our IBM i
customer to
>> move in to this 'normal' world. Not only do we have many options
that
>> allow you to do the work, we have a wealth of great ISVs that
provide
>> tooling to help you make this transition in a fraction of the time
while
>> in many cases leaving your existing code virtually untouched. If
you are
>> interested in getting a view of some of these ISV, please send me
a note
>> and I can get you a list.
>>
>> Or if you need more info on the options in the Open world for IBM
i,
>> please let us know.
>> Tim
>>
>> Tim Rowe, timmr@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Business Architect Application Development& Systems Management
for IBM i
>> IBM i Development Lab, Rochester, MN
>> (507) 253-6191 (Tie) 553-6191
>>
>> [2]
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/i/are/index.html
>>
References
Visible links
1.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/i/are/index.html
2.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/i/are/index.html
midrange.com
