"Jean Sagi" <jeansagi@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<ckcgdb$d0m$1@news.xmission.com>...
> 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.

I thought it was IIUG who got the EOS for 7.31 extended? I thought
IIUG were involved in initial discussions about EGL? I thought IIUG
were involved in features into 9.50?

Many IIUG people post on here. I thought IBM worked with and listened
to their representatives?

>
> 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 work with modern environments, then, either you're an old timer 4GL=
> =20
> >programmer or not, you may find EGL very useful.
> > =20
> >
> Certainly. I'm sure this is only the first step for IBM in putting 4GL=20
> in fashion again! :-)
>
> Fernando
>
> --
> Fernando Fernandez
> http://www.moredata.pt
>
> sending to informix-list
>
>
> Jean Sagi
> jeansagi@myrealbox.com
> jeansagi@yahoo.com
> sending to informix-list