Re: Re: EGL demo afterthoughts (long)

I wonder what happen if IBM _get_ some people who posts on this forumns, li= sten to them... and _do something_ about it. Not only, 4gl, IDS and all other stuff. It would be way interesintg... Chucho. -----Original Message----- From: Fernando Fernandez <ferdez@moredata.pt> To: informix-list@iiug.org Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:59:52 +0100 Subject: Re: EGL demo afterthoughts (long) Hi again! First of all, I must apologise to IBM for coming down on them on account=20 of my decade-long frustrations with Informix policy on 4GL! :-) That being said, I'd like to elaborate on some points. Fernando Nunes wrote: >I wouldn't call it an EGL demo... We've saw an .avi of basically a very=20 >simple 4GL batch progam being converted to EGL. This conversion was done= =20 >by the upcoming 4GL to EGL converter. There was no focus on the IDE or=20 >even on the EGL language itself. > =20 > True. I'm sure EGL and the IDE are good, complete products, that we=20 didn't have time to see in this event. Anyway, my comments are from a=20 point of view of a I4GL developer, for whom the only alternatives of=20 evolution have been dead-ends or third-party products. And the 4GL-EGL=20 evolution path seems not to be as easy as it could/should be. >1- EGL wasn't mean to accept 4GL syntax. EGL is a much bigger picture=20 >than 4GL (more on this later) > =20 > This is a pity, but understandable in IBM point of view. Not in I4GL=20 developers point of view, since almost all the work is in place. If you=20 have a translator you could easily have a compiler... >2- For people who want an OO language, there are plenty out there...=20 >Java is the most noticeable one. > =20 > Java is a low-level 3rd-gen language. I'm sick&tired of having to deal=20 with Java complexity to create the simplest tasks! I4GL is better for=20 most business-data tasks but lack of object orientation is a big minus.=20 OO & 4GL are not incompatible and *should* be merged. >3- EGL environment has Java integration. You can call Java from EGL and=20 >EGL from Java. >4- AFAIK EGL will allow yout to have multiple connections, to different DB= s > =20 > That's good. >5- Since you can call Java from EGL, sending mails, parsing XML etc.=20 >should be easy to do (if you have Java knowledge).=20 > =20 > My point is exactly the contrary! You shouldn't have to go to a lower=20 level language to do common tasks! >The "uglier language" is EGL itself... I wouldn't say it's uggly... It=20 >sure isn't 4GL... But anyone with a reasonable knowledge of 4GL or C=20 >will find it at least very "familiar". It has the usual procedural=20 >language constructs... > >The complexity of the IDE is a direct consequence of it's potencial...=20 >As I said earlier, EGL is a much bigger picture than 4GL... > =20 > No doubt! And I believe it's a good product. But I was ranting about why=20 Informix (and now IBM) doesn't simply create a better I4GL, when it's=20 already been done partially several times. There are many costumers that=20 want GUI-I4GL but don't want to go 4J's, Querix, etc. Why has it been so=20 hard to simply answer to these customers? >>In summary: 4GL is a simple, powerful, language, in a simple=20 >>environment. Simplicity is key. Let me simplify your job and tell you=20 >>what I'd like to see in the next EGL presentation: >> >> 1. Start with a 4GL program with a form and a report >> 2. Run a shell and type "newfglpc program.4gl" - creating program.jar >> - and then run "newfglrun program" and show a window with the >> program running in GUI mode >> 3. Then, run "newfglpc --web program.4gl" - creating a .war, this >> time - and then drop the warfile in an appserver; then go to a URL >> like "http://server/4gl/program"; and show it run on the browser >> with the exact same look&feel that in GUI mode. >> 4. And then, after establishing that the "New Informix 4GL" can >> really substitute on the old one, only then, very carefully, the >> demo could go on about JSF, app servers, complex IDE's (editing >> and debugging 4GL directly), etc., so that nobody is scared. ;-) >> =20 >> > >Comments: > >1- As it was said in the .avi intro, when released it's supposed to=20 >include a forms converter (or the converter will be able to convert forms) > =20 > Good. Then almost everything is in place... :-) >2- It would be nice... But as you mentioned, there are products which do= =20 >this. > =20 > But no IBM Informix product! Since this is a long time ambition for many=20 Informix costumers, would it be so hard to do this? They already have a=20 parser and a generator, converting 4GL to EGL. Why not wrap it all and=20 create a 4GL compiler? ;-) >3- The GUI in a applet was done by 4Js. I haven't touched it for a long=20 >time, but deploying wasn't easy... You either sent a +300KB applet (not=20 >nice for network) or you tried to install the applet... but this was not= =20 >very useful over the Internet... JSF makes more sense...? > =20 > 4J's, Oracle, etc. do it as applets and they sell. It's much easier to=20 deploy and very acceptable in a local network, which is the environment=20 of most I4GL apps. Sure JSF is a good technology for future projects.=20 But you must remember that the main concern of a I4GL developer is the=20 millions of lines of code he already has. He knows this code. He loves=20 it. He doesn't want it to be gone! He, mainly, wants it to appear=20 prettier to the user and not to be considered an old-fashioned=20 programmer that creates text apps! ;-) >4- Once again, EGL is not "the new Informix 4GL" and once again we=20 >haven't saw an EGL demo... only a film of a very basic (and pre-beta)=20 >conversion done by a "yet to come product". > =20 > Not "the new Informix 4GL"?!? You better warn the IBM guy who showed us=20 a slide with this title yesterday! ;-) >Now... What I mean by a "EGL is a much bigger picture than 4GL"... >I personaly don't think IBM have done EGL for replacing _I4GL_. EGL=20 >intends to be a _4GL_ for modern environments. Note the underlines...=20 >"4GL" and "I4GL". The "target" for EGL is not _only_ the I4GL=20 >environments out there... It's target are the programmig teams that have= =20 >to focus on business problems and solutions and want a "RAD" to do it. > =20 > Then, I insist: IBM should pick up the pieces already created and make a=20 "new I4GL", answering the long ambitions of long-time I4GL developers. >if you want Object Orientation, direct Java and JDBC, J2EE etc. and you=20 >are productive with, and know all this things, then you probably won't=20 >need EGL. > =20 > I disagree. Java is low level. OO and 4GL are not incompatible and even=20 work very well together, as Informix proved with New Era. >But if you, like me, have to do a program very quickly, and you have no=20 >practice on OO environments, and you would love to be able to integrate=20 >your wor