Re: compilers

Unfortunately, I *think* we disagree on the fact that Pick can provide an
end-end solution... Pick is superb for the database and the business rules,
but I don't see many (any?) native tools for providing a gui/web front end
for pick. Hence why I've grafted a .net solution.

I'm not afraid of taking the microsoft route... dotnet is very powerful and
allows me to leverage off a lot of "mainstream" tools/utilities which
otherwise wouldn't be available to me. Visual Studio also provides a
reasonably good drag-and-drop designer which I've interfaced back to the
database by inheriting standard windows controls and adding database
connectivity to them.

At the moment, I'm reasonably happy with my jBASE solution.. Martin will
need to convince me that OpenQM adds to the equation, in terms of overal
price/performance. Because of licence pooling, the individual licence cost
of the products is not really an issue. The development cost (to me) of
porting will be a major factor. I'll be happy to look hard at OpenQM if I
knew it would do all I need it to do without too much hassle...

I don't think I'm much different to any other developer in this regard....
We all have our "buttons" that we need to have pushed .... Dotnet is
mine... it's no good trying to say "use X instead of DotNet"... It's like
me buying a car, and saying i want an Automatic, but the car dealer telling
me that although they don't do automatics, their stick-shift is very
smooth..

Regards
Simon
<hbkeultjes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140986076.703161.322800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Simon Verona wrote:
However, I've chosen (rightly or wrongly) to use dotnet for my graphical
front end..

This means that whatever back-end database I have to use needs to support
dotnet.

Simon:

Obviously most participants in this forum do not take the absolute
positions that I do because they are developers, not an ened-user.
Therefore it is up to you to decide what market you go after.
Obviously you cannot sell *me* a mixed application but you might be
able to sell others on using those mixed applications. However, until
you go into the marketplace with a pure OpenQM/Pick application you
don't know what the market's reaction will be. The lack of skills by
the Pick VARs and developers to sell Pick into the current market place
has received plenty of attention in this forum. However, does anyone
know of any Pick VAR/Developer that is actually selling what can be
considered a mainstream suite of Pick applications that support the
total operations of an organization?

It's no good saying "use OpenQM and you can use KDE" - I'm looking at the
potential for switching MV platforms - not rewriting my complete
application. If OpenQM doesn't support a dotnet interface then it's
about
as useless to me as a chocolate fireguard... and no, I'm not interested
in
"rolling my own" interface - I'm an application not middleware developer.

That's one of the real dilemmas. Unfortunately I cannot be of any real
help right now. I am quite willing to solve this dilemma and I believe
that I understand how to solve the dilemma but doing so takes money and
noone out of the Pick community has ever come forward when I have asked
for financial help, most likely because I have always insisted that the
solution be totally Open Source and be done within a non-profit
corporation. That's one of the reasons that I am so grateful for the
pioneering work that Martin Phillips is doing but I believe that
Ladybridges for-profit structure will proof to be a limiting factor in
OpenQM becoming a mainstream product. At the same time, I would be so
glad to be able to provide these pieces that would make Pick once again
a mainstream product and let Ladybridge ride the coattails of such an
effort. That's something I have always been very explicit about, that
I count on that for-profit sector to be the contractor with the user
base, just like Red Hat is while Database Scientifics would be like an
organized group of Linux kernel hackers from which Red Hat picks up the
code that goes into their distro.


Maybe I just don't get it? Perhaps it's me thats barking up the wrong
tree, but surely it's up the database providers to provide me with the
features that *I* need to migrate my application?

That's a matter of mindset. Tom deLombarde obvious did not wait for
Martin to come up with a certain solution because he knew the solution
he needed was low on Martin's list. Perhaps a .NET interface is low on
Martin's list or it could be high. What has been pointed out many
times, if you want it tell Martin how he can profit from providing that
interface for you and I am sure he will respond. You may not realize
this but doing on-demand Open Source development work is one of the
fastest growing aspects of the Open Source movement. You could also
decide that you would rather have your needs stay within the
proprietary realm. Personally I believe that's a mistake because you
are missing out on the scrutiny of smart developers like Tom deLombarde
who can contribute incremental improvements but only to code that is
Open Source. However, that does not prevent you and/or your customer
from paying Ladybridge for the Open Source code nor does it prevent you
from contracting with Laybridge for support. The two are not mutually
exclusive although Ladybridge has every right to make them so..

Apologies if this appears to be a rant... I have the greatest respect
for
what Martin has done with OpenQM (from what I've read), but at the end of
the day, if it doesn't support the specific features that I need then the
whole thing is useless to me!!!

This is a matter of symantics. I believe it would be better to say"if
it doesn't support the specific features that I *THINK I* need then the
whole thing is useless to me!!!" There are always different ways to
skin the cat. When you tie your applications to .NET your are tying
yourself to a constantly moving target. That's how microsoft makes its
money. The value of Pick comes from its stablity and long-term
usefullness, Many of our applications that were written in 1980 are
just as usefull today as they were then. Most microsoft software from
that same era will not even run on any currently manufactured
processor. Why would, in these days of severe cost pressures,
customers not be interested in solutions that are much more productive
in the long run? The problem is, of course that one needs the ability
to overcome the high pressure sales BS from those who market those
"mainstream solutions".

It is a dilemma that we can overcome but only if we all start putting
our shoulder to the same wheel *and* push in the same direction.

Henry Keultjes
Microdyne Company
Mansfield Ohio USA



.