I agree that this list will be sorely missed. It has a genuine technical
value as well as a human value for some of the soft topics that floated
around. Plus, it helped identify some quite knowledgable people that I hope
still contribute later.
I've gotten some UV/UD and even D3 and AP-Pro and other native advice from
this list. Even the VAR for one of my clients frequents this list with
questions and answers.
Anyway, thanks to Clif and everyone for all their help over the years. See
you on the other side.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Ockenden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> You must have more time on your hands than I but I will try to reply to
> before this list terminates.
> This list has helped me and I'm sure many others overcome our ignorance or
> lack of experience etc. When genuine problems are encountered we usually
> through our support channels and they get fixed (usually). In fact only
> other day a small issue was confirmed (in my mind) as an introduced bug
> I have since reported it to IBM with their response being "acknowledged"
> "will be in the next release" etc.
> Now, one of my pet topics is typing!
> You are partly correct when you say UV treats all data as strings.
> if the UV programmer is careful he/she can get it to do maths processing.
> Variables within UVBasic are string unless the result of an expression is
> numeric whereby it becomes numeric. If it needs to be treated as string UV
> will automatically convert it back to string. Now this makes programming
> much easier and if the programmer is careful not to treat it as a string
> he/she can perform many mathematical operations on it without it becoming
> string again.
> Now this brings me to the next point when referring to typing.
> UV stores numeric data such as dates, time and numbers as a string value
> with no decimal point etc. quite deliberately. This technique makes
> selection or searches on the file much more efficient than 'mainstream'
> searches as they must use the numeric capabilities of the processor to
> out the necessary comparisons whereby UV simply does string comparisons.
> Now at this point I must draw back a little as I have too many comments to
> The procedural code you provide is crude to say the least and yes there
> many tools that allow you to use more 'business rules' and so forth.
> Finally, in Australia where we generally are considered to be minor
> there is an UV site with 2000 plus concurrent users on a wide area network
> that processes 3-4 million transactions per day 7x24 and has to date been
> first to bring new technologies to the market before any 'mainstream'
> products. Poof is in the eating I'm afraid.
> Trevor Ockenden
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U2 Users Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 3:06 PM
> Subject: RE: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > Trevor,
> > I am a member of serveral other Technical Forms. When i have found
> > with any software, have brought it up on several occasions. A few of
> > issues
> > were acknowledged by the Software Vendor and later architectural changes
> > were made to rectify the issue.
> > On this Forum, i have rarely heard anybody talk about Problems OF UV...
> > Perhaps they are too big Loyalists of UV to approve of the Problem....
> > Do you know what this leads to...the Vendor is never going to improve
> > software,
> > unless the Clients asks for more..
> > Do you think VB.NET will Perform better than C#.NET? C# is a strongly
> > language, just like java...this helps it Peform and scale better.
> > Our UV Developers tell me, everything in UV is treated as Strings..
> > Do you think MATH Functions will Perform better in UV than a DataBase
> > supports DataTypes?
> > A String can be any Possible Combinations, so the the underlying
> > Language/Compiler takes
> > more time to achive the same results. Leave alone MATH... Try some BIG
> > Loops.
> > Another Big Problem..Unicode on any MainStream Database is a very easy
> > to do..
> > No effort required. We were trying to get Unicode into UV For about 4
> > Months. We failed
> > and finally had IBM Consultants come in to help.. Even they couldnt get
> > done.
> > Finally, we decided to store all Unicode in MS-SQL Server until IBM gets
> > things resolved.
> > Do you think this is a good situation?
> > Yes, MainStream DataBases are Complex because they do ALOT of STUFF.
> > I have written applications that were entirely Data Logic
> > Logic,
> > Rules Logic, Data Intergrity Logic etc). There applications were highly
> > scalable
> > and responded in LESS 300 MILLISECONDS PER REQUEST.
> > On the contrary... The UV Programs i have come across treat UV as a Flat
> > File,
> > Data Dump Mechanism. Then the UV Developer uses PICK/BASIC to Read the
> > and ALL the Logic is Embeded within these PICK/BASIC Programs. So you
> > taking
> > the Data out of its Container and doing a TON of Data Interpreting...
> > WHERE ALOT OF these can be BASED on RELATIONAL DATA.
> > E.G. Lets say you have to Process Order Taxes Based on Country Code and
> > State Code.
> > Our UV Developers write a PICK/BASIC Program like
> > if(countryCode == 'USA' & stateCode == 'NY')
> > read some file with data...
> > else if (countryCode == 'USA" & stateCode=='SC')
> > read some file and do this...
> > So for every Country and State.... you are goona do the above..
> > Why NOT just relate the data between the combinations within the DB
> > with Data Relations...and just leave the data where it belongs...
> > Hell alot of LESS Code.. right?
> > You can clearly see where Procedural Technique is Highly In-Efficient.
> > Thanks,
> > Joe Eugene
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Behalf Of Trevor Ockenden
> > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:55 PM
> > >To: U2 Users Discussion List
> > >Subject: Re: Modern Universe - was: The lists are closing
> > >
> > >
> > >Joe
> > >
> > >One final point. You find it hard to believe people on this LIST get so
> > >defensive.
> > >
> > >May I suggest that if we were to dive into a DB2 or SQLServer LIST (if
> > >exist) and put them down I dare say we would get some pretty
> > >abusive remarks
> > >thrown at us too.
> > >
> > >Only to be expected
> > >
> > >Trevor Ockenden
> > >OSP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
> > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > >Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004
> > >
> > >--
> > >u2-users mailing list
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> > --
> > u2-users mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG 6.0.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.642 / Virus Database: 410 - Release Date: 24/03/2004
> u2-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
u2-users mailing list