RE: Re: Resort back to RPG? -- WEB400

Seems like I heard these same ideas when structured code was introduced.  
Looking at market forces (and IBM's response),
ILE RPG looks *more* like an OO language than it looks like RPG/400.  Sure, the 
syntax is the same (mostly) but the
structure is vastly different.  I haven't seen java adapt a procedure model 
yet.....

As I have said in the past, use the tool that fits the job.  That also means if 
you have a bunch of RPG coders working
in your shop, java may be relegated to niche applications.  The needs of the 
business must dictate the requirements.  If
you don't have the expertise in java (and you don't want to hire Joe's folks to 
help) you need to stick with what you
know.  On the other hand, if you feel java will give you a strategic advantage 
(decreased development cycle, reduced
maintenance costs, etc.) then you should pursue java with a fervor.  Sound like 
many folks want to delve in java with a
foot firmly planted in well understood technologies (like RPG).  However, the 
early adaptors will have distinct
advantage in the marketplace.

Another issue is finding RPG expertise... anyone else having medium to large 
problems finding qualified RPG resources?
At school, we only offer our RPG tract once a year.  Reason? We can't (pardon 
the expression) put butts in the seats.
However, the java courses are offered every quarter.  Here at Honeywell, we 
have a devil of a time finding RPG resources
for our site (just outside Dayton, OH).  There are no RPG resources that live 
in town; everyone drives 30-50 minutes
each way.

just my two cents...  You guys have covered the pros and cons quite well...

thanks

dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Boldt [mailto:boldt@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:32 PM
To: web400@midrange.com
Subject: [WEB400] Re: Resort back to RPG?


Joe Pluta wrote:
 > ...
> The problem with applying OO to business applications is that it doesn't
> work.  As you point out, inheritance falls apart quickly when designing
> business objects.  Unfortunately, so does its alternative, composition.  For
> example, in the case I discussed, the MRP generation, there are perhaps a
> dozen different flags with a hundred different states.  If you program these
> each using a separate class and use a hierarchy heavily dependent upon
> composition, then you will be performing tests all throughout your
> containing class to determine the appropriate actions.  You will, in effect,
> be reproducing all the procedural code except you will have added the
> overhead of the object design.
 > ...

Joe, sorry, but I have a *big* problem with your main contention
that somehow business applications are too complex for OO languages,
and yet a procedural language is just fine.  The capabilities of the
typical OO language are clearly much greater than procedural
languages in many areas:  Data structuring, interface definition,
modularization, function libraries, etc, etc.  To argue that a
problem domain that is somehow too complex for OO can be handled
more easily by a less capable language just goes against plain
common sense, in my humble opinion.

Hans














_______________________________________________
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@midrange.com
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.