Brian Leach wrote:
Steve
I think you're possibly out of date in your view of the database - again, not
wanting to be confrontational but this is an important point that you raise.
You are correct. The inroads IBM has made by offerring XML-DOM, SOAP,
etc show they do have a plan and a clue.
I've also used MV for many years, but for the vast majority of that it has been
as part of a client/server or similar platform.
Unfortunately, my only experience with a graphical toolkit is my most
recent position. All of my previous shops have been pure U2 (or D3, or
Adds Mentor) with character based UI.
My company is using SB+ almost exclusively in a terminal. We ssh to our
erp system a lot, and the console works fine for us.
If you're using MSSQL, you still end up coding stored procedures in TSQL -
which is truly archaic. The only difference is that you *have* to use other
languages on the client side to make up for the lack of inherent functionality.
We have MSSQL in house, but I do not use it. I am happy with my unix
based db.
We did just commission an outside developer to rewrite our offline
ordering system. I was not too involved in the whole project. I do
remember being supremely embarrassed by the VSG and the bolt on
appearance and age of the tools we have available. I defend U2 against
ppl all the time, but some of the criticism is warranted.
Over the years I've used UniVerse with VB, ASP, Java, Delphi, PHP, VB.net, C#,
ASP.Net and I'm now journeying into Silverlight. There is, and for the last 20
years has been, no good reason to limit the database by your choice of
language. With the APIs available, you can code in whatever you like.
You are 100% correct. Did you notice sth common about your whole list?
With the exceptopn of php and java, they are all win32 technologies. I
know there is mono for C#, but I am still holding out for a poweful
server-sode, as well as client side solution for mv.
BTW I gave up F correlatives as soon as I moved to UniVerse - that's what I descriptors are for .. and I haven't used ED for serious development for almost 20 years. I use my own autodoc style, and have a parser that uses that to assemble documentation. These things are not platform limitations.
:) I had a regression recently back into old-D3, after several years in
Unidata. I almost died. I am so glad to be back.
On another specific point, I actually prefer the fact that Universe and UniData statements support Else and On Error as opposed to exception handling. I've seen too many C# projects where exception handling was - pardon the pun - very badly handled, bubbling exceptions up but not finally treating them correctly. java may be retentive in the extreme, but at least it forces you to handle exceptions - just about the only thing in that language I wish would be added to C# (even as an option).
I was a little extreme ealrier this evening. This is sth I am
passionate about. I think I want to amend my stance andsay I dont think
I would "replace" unibasic with python. What I would _love_ to see is
it along side of Unibasic. Fully functional and integrated, but a
companion, not a replacement.
There is no technical reason we have to have to have one DML. All the
existing bindings are for client side integration. Python integration,
well done, will provide true cross platform solution.
Want to use your mv db with twisted? zope? report to a zenoss install?
apache cgi? iis? doesnt matter, it will all work.
The language syntax hasn't evolved on the U2 platforms, but the functionality
avilable has, which is the important thing. There are other interesting moves
with Pick/Basic outside the U2 space - take a look at what is happening with
QM, for example. They have added some OO features to the language that seem
genuinely useful. Perhaps we should petition IBM to add something similar, but
I don't think a rewrite of the language is necessary so long as the hooks are
in place to call into UniVerse or UniData from the outside world.
I just want to rip the bandaid off quickly. Why make the revolution
take 20 years. I only have about that long left to work. I want to
see it in my lifetime. :)
No, the reason why so many UniVerse and UniData sites look and feel archaic is
because they are. People simply haven't taken full advantage of the features,
and developers keep within their comfort zone. And management sees a working
system and rarely spends the money. It's not the database that is limited, it's
the imagination of those who pay for it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
I really like your solutions and your work. I think I may be on the
same track, but 10 years behind you. I do not use windows (personally)
so a lot of yours and Tony G's work is not quite what I need.
Steve
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
