Re: 4GL vs. ESQL/C
In article <8kv4gd$nsa$1@news.xmission.com>, "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: mars1972@my-deja.com > > > >In article <8kuitd$g1m$1@news.xmission.com>, > > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: "Carl Y. Wu" <carlywu2@yahoo.com> > > > > > > > >We are making a decision of whether to move our applications towards > >ESQL/C > > > >(from 4GL) > > > >My company is an ISP and our billing system is running on IDS 7.3. > > > >The majarity of the billing system is written in 4GL, we use RDS > >version of > > > >4GL in both development and production. > > > >Two server programs which deal with customer signing up from the web > >use > > > >TCP/IP sockets so they are written in C, and use the argument stack > >to call > > > >4GL functions to do database access. > > > >We are rewriting some components of the application system and some > >people > > > >sugguest that we should move to ESQL/C and here are some of their > > > >arguments: > > > >1. ESQL/C is more portable, 4GL is not portable at all. > > > > > > Huh? In what way? > > > > > > >2. The sign up server programs should be rewrtten in ESQL/C rather > >than > > > >half > > > >in C and half in 4GL. because the push and pops on the argument stack > >are > > > >"ugly". > > > > > > The effort to rewrite this now is, I'm sure, non-trivial. My first > >question > > > is always: is it working? It is? Well, then, why **** with it? > > > >I think the point made was that they WERE going to rewrite it. The > >question was what should they rewrite it in? > > 4GL? Anyway, it wasn't clear to me, and on re-reading the original post, > it's *still* not clear to me. :-) > > > > >3. C is a "more beautiful language" than 4GL. > > > > > > Gmpf. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, fer sure. That is, quite > > > honestly, the stupidest thing I think I've ever heard. (Outside of New > > > Labour, of course!) > > > > > > >Funny. I thought Elle McPherson was beautiful... > > Or Liz "Publicity-shy" Hurley. > > > > >To me it's certainly staying with 4GL. Move towards ESQL/C just for > >two > > > >signup server programs' sake doesn't make sense to me. > > > > > > It *might* be worth rewriting those two programs, I'm not sure. But do > >be > > > aware that the maintenance of ESQL/C is much more difficult, because > >that > > > "beauty" comes at the price of comprehensibility. > > > >This is the statement that provoked me to post a reply. <Ahem> Hey, > >that's not fair! I depends entirely on what the people who are doing > >the maintaining know. If ESQL/C is written correctly, it isn't > >difficult to maintain at all. > > Mmmm...you haven't seen my ESQL/C then. :-) > > Seriously, it's a *lot* easier to write obfuscated code in C than it is in > 4GL. Of course it is! That's because it's a lot easier to do things that aren't possible in 4gl. But really, you can't blame the language for the limitations of the programmer. Ever heard of 'sins of the father'? > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > -- # unrm / ksh: unrm: not found # man cpio Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
From: mars1972@my-deja.com > >In article <8kuitd$g1m$1@news.xmission.com>, > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: "Carl Y. Wu" <carlywu2@yahoo.com> > > > > > >We are making a decision of whether to move our applications towards >ESQL/C > > >(from 4GL) > > >My company is an ISP and our billing system is running on IDS 7.3. > > >The majarity of the billing system is written in 4GL, we use RDS >version of > > >4GL in both development and production. > > >Two server programs which deal with customer signing up from the web >use > > >TCP/IP sockets so they are written in C, and use the argument stack >to call > > >4GL functions to do database access. > > >We are rewriting some components of the application system and some >people > > >sugguest that we should move to ESQL/C and here are some of their > > >arguments: > > >1. ESQL/C is more portable, 4GL is not portable at all. > > > > Huh? In what way? > > > > >2. The sign up server programs should be rewrtten in ESQL/C rather >than > > >half > > >in C and half in 4GL. because the push and pops on the argument stack >are > > >"ugly". > > > > The effort to rewrite this now is, I'm sure, non-trivial. My first >question > > is always: is it working? It is? Well, then, why **** with it? > >I think the point made was that they WERE going to rewrite it. The >question was what should they rewrite it in? 4GL? Anyway, it wasn't clear to me, and on re-reading the original post, it's *still* not clear to me. :-) > > >3. C is a "more beautiful language" than 4GL. > > > > Gmpf. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, fer sure. That is, quite > > honestly, the stupidest thing I think I've ever heard. (Outside of New > > Labour, of course!) > > > >Funny. I thought Elle McPherson was beautiful... Or Liz "Publicity-shy" Hurley. > > >To me it's certainly staying with 4GL. Move towards ESQL/C just for >two > > >signup server programs' sake doesn't make sense to me. > > > > It *might* be worth rewriting those two programs, I'm not sure. But do >be > > aware that the maintenance of ESQL/C is much more difficult, because >that > > "beauty" comes at the price of comprehensibility. > >This is the statement that provoked me to post a reply. <Ahem> Hey, >that's not fair! I depends entirely on what the people who are doing >the maintaining know. If ESQL/C is written correctly, it isn't >difficult to maintain at all. Mmmm...you haven't seen my ESQL/C then. :-) Seriously, it's a *lot* easier to write obfuscated code in C than it is in 4GL. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com