The Year Ahead: Predictions for the iSeries Community
** This thread discusses the article: The Year Ahead: Predictions for the iSeries Community **
It's not my opinion, it's the opinion prominently noted elsewhere in IT publications. I rarely care what IT pundits say. Even so, I don't know of a single IT publication that insists that the browser is a bad interface. Feel free to get those URLs out. Most of those folks lost their credibility as they parroted the ITAA as they told us there's a shortage of programmers in the US. Anyway, back to the question, which is pretty simple: what does 5250 do that HTML does not do? Since 5250 is arguably the most successful UI ever created, and still going strong, and it is the overwhelming interface for our market, it seems clear to me that the next generation UI needs in our market needs to be functionally equivalent to 5250, and thus the question arises: how is 5250 better than HTML? Both Swing and RCP are thick clients; RCP simply makes better use of native components, although at the price of being tied more tightly to the OS. But thick clients are almost useless in the era of Internet access, for any number of reasons (not the least of which is distribution). Someone may eventually come up with a zero-footprint thick client (and in fact there are a few projects like that in place). At that point we may have a thick client option, but until then the thick client is not a solution for my customers. According to my customers, zero-footprint browser access is absolutely necessary, and not one of them agrees with your assessment of HTML. What they do agree on is that there is a certain class of power user who requires host-centric applications to be tightly tied to desktop programs, and those particular users can use a thick client. But my users do not see replacing green screens with thick clients; they majority of green screens will be replaced by browsers. Joe
** This thread discusses the article: The Year Ahead: Predictions for the iSeries Community **
It's not my opinion, it's the opinion prominently noted elsewhere in IT publications. I rarely care what IT pundits say. Even so, I don't know of a single IT publication that insists that the browser is a bad interface. Feel free to get those URLs out. Most of those folks lost their credibility as they parroted the ITAA as they told us there's a shortage of programmers in the US. Anyway, back to the question, which is pretty simple: what does 5250 do that HTML does not do? Since 5250 is arguably the most successful UI ever created, and still going strong, and it is the overwhelming interface for our market, it seems clear to me that the next generation UI needs in our market needs to be functionally equivalent to 5250, and thus the question arises: how is 5250 better than HTML? Both Swing and RCP are thick clients; RCP simply makes better use of native components, although at the price of being tied more tightly to the OS. But thick clients are almost useless in the era of Internet access, for any number of reasons (not the least of which is distribution). Someone may eventually come up with a zero-footprint thick client (and in fact there are a few projects like that in place). At that point we may have a thick client option, but until then the thick client is not a solution for my customers. According to my customers, zero-footprint browser access is absolutely necessary, and not one of them agrees with your assessment of HTML. What they do agree on is that there is a certain class of power user who requires host-centric applications to be tightly tied to desktop programs, and those particular users can use a thick client. But my users do not see replacing green screens with thick clients; they majority of green screens will be replaced by browsers. Joe
Comment