Re: Costco still on IBM i?

"we developed an own solution for the communication between the client and
the RPG program - for better or worse."

Why reinventing hot water? Ok probably not your decision but in this way
"you" damage yourself twice:
- Send to IBM the wrong signal (a lack of IWS adoption is a bad signal)
- Expose your business to a technological debt instead of delegating IBM to
solve it (now your company pays a maintenace fee to IBM and another vendor)

And please Daniel don't get me wrong, mine is not a position against 5250,
what I don't want to lose is:
A fantastic operating system
A performant and solid DataBase
Hardware that never breaks
Technical support without comparison
A business-oriented programming language without competitors

and I'm afraid that if we don't all stop clinging to the old paradigm that
the 5250 brings with it, sooner or later we'll all find ourselves stranded.

Best regards
--
Marco Facchinetti

Mr S.r.l.

Tel. 035 962885
Cel. 393 9620498

Skype: facchinettimarco


Il giorno dom 25 mag 2025 alle ore 16:49 Daniel Gross <daniel@xxxxxxxx> ha
scritto:

Hi Marco,

Am 25.05.2025 um 15:59 schrieb Marco Facchinetti <

marco.facchinetti@xxxxxxxxx>:

Hi Daniel I understand your point but I invite you to think a little

wider.

...snip...
programmers who remain anchored to that model often do not see or do not
consider because they are not part of their horizon.

As I've already written - our web team develops web-UI connected to your
services. We don't use IWS - we developed an own solution for the
communication between the client and the RPG program - for better or worse.

So - I'm really at home in both worlds - but I never would say that one
interface it better than the other - as always, it depends.

Am 25.05.2025 um 16:25 schrieb Marco Facchinetti <

marco.facchinetti@xxxxxxxxx>:

The general problem about IBM i applications is that there is a very

large

codebase without the proper interface.

Well - they have a 5250 user interface - which might not be "proper" for
you - but for many it's absolutely OK. That late-90s-early-2000s UI hype is
mostly over - the ones who wanted web UIs have done it - the other did not.

I see many situations where many complain about not having the budget to
change the interface of the programs but they spend time and energy to
adapt the existing programs to the rules and the changing market.

Well - changing rules and regulations of the core business are a must -
also strategic changes of the core business - and if the core business
requests web-UI - fine, they get it. But more the often - they don't.

Changing the UI of an application must add business value for the core
business. If you are an ISV - the UI is part of YOUR core business - but
for a transport-logistics company, the core business is something
completely different.

I don't see why they should be two different things, if you don't adapt

the rules

you are out of the market and if you don't adapt the interface too.

From your ISV perspective that's right - as an ISV you might be out of the
market quite quickly if you don't follow the caravan to web-UIs.

But as a company that does IT as a "utility" for its core business - you
don't follow every trend - you have to develop your software aligned to the
core business strategy - not following the latest hype-cycles.

Regards,
Daniel

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.