Re: Strw Poll : I-4GL for NT

Nils Myklebust wrote: > > I have to take issue with both Tim and Mike here. > You have the whole market issue upside down. > > If I have an application created in Informix 4GL and my customers > demand to use Windows NT, or they will not by it, I have a problem. If > I haven't allready rewritten it in some other language so it will run > on NT, it's highly likely it will take too long to do it now. If there > is a way to make the 4GL application run on Windows NT with a simple > recompile and possibly some minor tweeking that may be a good idea. > Uhm, No. The paradigm shift is too great. NT is NT, 4GL is a great tool, however both try to solve similar problems from different perspectives. You need a square hole / square peg and round hole / round peg solutions. Can't mix the two with good results. > Sure it will not be a true GUI application. That is not possible given > the language. Sure it will not run as well as on Unix. The problem > however is that nobody cares. The customer is not only king, he is > God. > No. This is a fallacy. If you remember the Applewhite guy from Heaven's gate? He went to several surgeons to get himself emasculated. None would perform said surgery. Why? Is the customer really god? He then went to someone who botched the operation. Guess like Applewhite got what he deserved. My point isn't to relate dumb clients to getting one's balls cut off, but to re-enforce the concept that sometimes the client wants to do something which is less than intelligent. It is the ethical and moral responsibility to alert the client and to give all misgivings in a written form. (Its also great for CYA when the client gets pissed and doesn't want to pay your bill.) Also, Clients have a peculiar way of changing their minds when they don't like the look and feel of a product doesn't match up to their expectations. (Gee, that *never* happens right ;-) If a client wants you to do something that is in your opinion, braindead, walk away. I mean, I could make $200.00 plus doing Cobol year 2K work. Do you see me doing it? (OK, so I'd be drinking heavily everynight and I'd have JCL nightmares!) > You may argue with your customer, you may convince him Unix is better, > he may agree totally, still he demands NT. Unix was only better from > every technical aspect, not when all the other aspects where > considered. Even if it where better considering all other aspects many > customers may still demand NT. Not all of them are rational. > The recommendation isn't NT or not NT. It is if you must have NT, then I-4GL is not a viable option. Remember that 4GL was written for a different Paradigm. If a client says NT, then I'd say what development tool. NE? Visual Cafe? VB, VC++, OpenStep, Delphi, ... the list goes on. > If you are in such a position beeing able to deliver on NT now may be > a life or death issue for your company and thereby partly for you. > If it becomes a life and death issue of your company, then get out. You have other business problems to worry about. Look, the idea goes beyond a *functional* issue. First, lets look at it from Informix's position. 1) Native NT does not handle multiple users well. 2) Native NT doesn't handle telnetd well. 3) Native NT has an incredible overhead cost on a system. 4) Native NT would have problems acting as an application and database server. 5) Customers want an NT based engine with ODBC, not I-4GL. (Getting a Linux port is like pulling teeth. And it is a simpler argument.) So if there is no demand, why do a port of a tool which could not justify itself? Since NT doesn't handle telnet well, what obstacles do they face in the port. Do they have to resell another telnetd for NT so they can sell 4GL? > You may be able to rewrite some important parts of your application > first, but need to be able to continue to run other parts in 4GL. > > These are the major considerations. I am at a loss to understand why > you can't see it. I am equally at a loss to understand why you keep > arguing about the benefits of Unix over NT. They may be many, but who > cares if all, or even only some of your customers demand NT and you go > out of bussiness. > I didn't want to get into an argument over NT vs UNIX. My point was that I-4GL wasn't a good fit for microslops view of the client/server world. I could care less which one you chose. But if you chose NT, use tools best suited for NT. > It's important to understand technical issues from a bussiness point > of view. If you don't your bussiness may easily be hurt, and possibly > even severly. From this perspective it's of course equally important > to understand that 4GL run in a GUI environement can be nothing but a > stop gap solution. If anybody expects to be able to sell 4GL > applications running on Windows NT for an extended periode I thing > they will be in for a rude awakening. > Stop Gap measures? Gee anyone remember 4GL/GX as a stop gap measure? I wonder if Informix made back the development costs? My point is that stop gap measures look good on paper, but if you are going to do something, then byte the bullet and do it. You can hedge your bet, but short term solutions usually bite you in the ass, unless you are fighting a fire and need a short term solution. > Despite the above I sure hope to be able to do without 4GL on NT. > Shit! Shit! Shit! Shit! :-) [Inside joke from S.F.] Nils was just giving us a hard time playing Devils advocate! Nils, I do agree with the observations you have made. However, I feel that the obstacles and the end result of porting 4GL to NT do not justify it. There are better and cheaper ways of achieving said results. -Mikey -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif ***************************** Due to AGIS's Refusal to Act Responsibly We are blocking all of their domains at the packet level. This block will exist until AGIS modifies their policies to conform to existing RFCs and net community standards. We encourage all ISPs and domain holders to do the same. *****************************