Re: Windows vs i5/OS as a platform

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: albartell
>
> Yes, you have a much thinner UI than most, but it still requires coding
> for
> each new screen and field added right?  If that is true then you need two
> knowledge sets to create/modify a screen/application.  A programmer could
> just as easily code an error in the Java logic/mapping that is reading
> from
> the data queue as they could in the RPG side, and it wont be blatantly
> known
> where it is until you dig in.

Well, okay, I guess.  But if you're advocating single-language solutions on
the server because it's too hard for the poor RPG programmer to add one more
field conversion to a list of field conversions in Java but at the same time
saying that those same programmers can handle JavaScript, then you're really
contradicting yourself.


> That is where having a single language shines (which I believe you agree
> with, but you don't put enough weight on the fact that Java isn't a
> lightweight language for many of the people that would have to use it in
> this architecture).  Yes you have to do HTML, CSS, and Javascript in both,
> but in a RPG CGI scenario you only need to know RPG as the primary
> serverside language, not RPG AND Java.

If you have to program JavaScript, then you have to know enough of the
syntax to handle a simple conversion.  And if you can't even handle that,
then you might want to stay away from web design.

I'm sorry, but this drum beat that Java is too hard but JavaScript is not is
simply indefensible.  And using RPG to generate JavaScript (which is what
you need to do to build any but the simplest interfaces) is about as hard as
you can get!  I know, I do it for a living <grin>.

Final note: if you really can't handle even the tiny amount of Java required
for a thin-veneer Java interface, then you might want to take a look at EGL.
EGL does all of that for you, and even gives you a WYSIWYG painter for the
web page, something you don't have with RPG-CGI.

Joe