Re: XML, RPG, Web Services, Joe = Holy Warwas -> RE: Re: Modify the IE Browser -- WEB400

Buck wrote:

This community and the Perl/Python community are two
complete different animals.  Each with the good points,
each with the bad.  They're not even comparable.

I completely agree that they are two different animals.  That was the point
of my post: that if we broaden our horizons, more choices can make for
better decisions.  In that light, I think it is fair to compare those of us
breaking into the web world with people who have been there for quite some
time.

I want to stress again that I am in no way saying that RPG is absolutely
worthless for web stuff.  What I am trying to say is that I might be cutting
my own wrists if I ignore all the other solutions available to me.  RPG is
absolutely one of those possible solutions in a universe of possibilities,
but it is not the ONLY one.  My point was that limiting my
design/architecture to ONLY include what my RPG team can do is
self-limiting.

Once you've decided that for your situation, RPG is the better way to
proceed for web stuff; by all means go for it!  Nathan said "If people use
RPG to implement Web interfaces, more power to them.  I say RPG is more than
up to the task.  Let's not be stopped by imaginary barriers!"  He's right.
I want to add that an imaginary barrier may well be 'But we only know RPG.'

Shannon said "I've personally written web and web-type apps in RPG-CGI,
Perl, Java (tomcat, servlets, jsp, etc..) and VB and .Net....and by
far....for an AS/400 programmer who has never had the time, opportunity or
motivation to learn another language,  RPG-CGI is by FAR! the easiest way to
go."  Well, you may have said it all there.  I have personally discovered
that learning other languages has made my RPG better.  That by just looking
around to see how other programmers do stuff has made my own programming
(any language) better.  And that the better my programming gets, the better
solutions I can offer my employer and our customers.  And there sure are
plenty of iSeries programmers who haven't actively acquired familiarity with
other languages, for a bunch of reasons.

For example, there's a whole wonderful world available to us iSeries folks
who are at ease with both CL and RPG.  The folks who are only comfortable
with RPG can't touch that.  If you don't believe me, look at the number of
times we've answered the same question regarding parameters passed by an RPG
program to a submitted job via QCMDEXC.  Because their world ends at the RPG
boundary, they have cut themselves off from the most flexible and elegant
solution available - write a command.  The two together are a better
solution than RPG alone.

Once more, differently: Advocating learning more about the rest of the
programming universe is NOT a slam on the part I know and love - RPG.  All I
am saying is that as programmers we should not artificially limit ourselves
to RPG-only solutions.  As I said earlier, put the RPG solution along with
the other language solutions in the management blender and choose what is
best for you and your situation.

--buck

Nicely put, Buck.

Not meaning to belabor the point, but one thing about RPG-CGI occurred to me during my drive in to work this morning:

One of the main comments that always comes up is the issue of protecting a company's investment in its programming. One of the best ways to ensure that a company's programming assets are protected and preserved is to make the code flexible enough to weather technological change, such as the paradigm shift from green-screen to web based user interface. Applications where the coding has a nice split between business logic and user interface logic stand the best chance of weathering such changes. Thus, the "Model View Controller" (MVC) style of programming.

Applications written using a framework like J2EE (among others) naturally fit into an MVC framework, since different tools are used for each component. In J2EE, JSP's are used for the "View", Servlets are used for the "Controller", and typically regular Java (possibly including Java Beans) are used for the "Model", possibly with exits to pre-existing procedural code.

On the other hand, when coding using traditional CGI (just like workstation DDS), there are no tools, no incentives, and no motivation to structure your code following an MVC design. You could of course, but consider how much poorly structured procedural code is already out there using workstation DDS.

My point is this: Sure, you can take the comfortable route and recode the user interface using RPG-CGI. But if you're not very careful and you're not familiar with MVC design, you can easily limit your options with RPG-CGI. If you have the need to restructure your user interface, best to go with a framework that can better accomodate change. We may not know what the next big paradigm shift is going to be, but we all know it's coming.

Cheers! Hans