What's compatible with DW.NET 2.0 and DW.NET 2.5

The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there
is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB
towards the .Net area.

Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET
area.  We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now
with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual
Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with
DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward.

So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work
well together?
0
Rufas
5/20/2008 6:50:51 PM
sybase.powerbuilder.futures 2315 articles. 0 followers. Follow

58 Replies
1335 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 28
Get it on Google Play
Get it on Apple App Store

I don't think this is really the group for this but:

We went down the DW.NET 2.5 path...even bought it... and well the end 
result was that it was too cumbersome to use.  It was much easier dare I 
say quicker to use other native third-party.net controls....... 
Especially if you leverage .NET Frameworks.

So to get back on topic here for this group.

DW.NET is useful if that is more or less the only thing that you use for 
your data access layer, and your programmers are current or ex-pb 
programmers.  (Explaining the pbl/librarylist concept to a vb/C# 
programmer just doesn't work, plus the source-control issues)

You can infact bypass the entire .net Data model and use a PB-style data 
layer using the Transaction, Datastore and datawindow objects, with the 
only change being that you are now coding in C# or VB instead of 
powerscript.  Some would call that a fantastic feature, others like me 
would not.....

What should IMHO dw.net do:

1) Most of the gui improvements people scream PB should do.
2) Somehow incorporate most of the PFC style dw services into it natively.
3) Deeply integrate the .NET 2.0 Data access model into it.
4) Remove Pbl concept.
5) Remove the datastore object, and use a DataTable instead.


Rufas wrote:
> The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there
> is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB
> towards the .Net area.
> 
> Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET
> area.  We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now
> with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual
> Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with
> DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward.
> 
> So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work
> well together?
0
J
5/21/2008 6:04:29 AM
Rufas;

    FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided to do exactly what 
you have just done 2 years ago and opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 at 
that time). They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of their top 
10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they informed me that in the past year 
they had deployed 3 new PB applications into production and zero VS into 
production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard learning curve and not 
nearly as productive as PB. They have now re-evaluated their change in tool 
direction and are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-)

-- 
Regards ... Chris
http://chrispollach.pbdjmagazine.com


"Rufas" <thunderingquiet@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1779de62-67d4-4356-94a2-66221f4f438f@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there
> is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB
> towards the .Net area.
>
> Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET
> area.  We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now
> with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual
> Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with
> DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward.
>
> So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work
> well together? 


0
Chris
5/21/2008 12:30:58 PM
 Ooops .. 2005  (2205, will man still be alive?)  <bg> mybad.  :-)


"Chris Pollach" <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote in message 
news:48341602$1@forums-1-dub...
> Rufas;
>
>    FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided to do exactly what 
> you have just done 2 years ago and opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 
> at that time). They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of their 
> top 10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they informed me that in the past 
> year they had deployed 3 new PB applications into production and zero VS 
> into production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard learning curve 
> and not nearly as productive as PB. They have now re-evaluated their 
> change in tool direction and are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-)
>
> -- 
> Regards ... Chris
> http://chrispollach.pbdjmagazine.com
>
>
> "Rufas" <thunderingquiet@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1779de62-67d4-4356-94a2-66221f4f438f@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there
>> is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB
>> towards the .Net area.
>>
>> Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET
>> area.  We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now
>> with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual
>> Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with
>> DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward.
>>
>> So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work
>> well together?
>
> 


0
Chris
5/21/2008 12:36:14 PM
Have you ever thought that your "success" story is anything other than a example of how bad PB developers are when asked to deal with other technology? Or maybe it's an example of how far removed PB is from EVERYTHING else on the market? No. Didn't think so.

Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some DW.Net respect instead of this nonsense. Lastly, there is nothing "major" about Canada.

Troy


On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:30:58 -0500, Chris Pollach <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote:

> Rufas;
>
>     FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided to do exactly what
> you have just done 2 years ago and opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 at
> that time). They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of their top
> 10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they informed me that in the past year
> they had deployed 3 new PB applications into production and zero VS into
> production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard learning curve and not
> nearly as productive as PB. They have now re-evaluated their change in tool
> direction and are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-)
>

0
Troy
5/21/2008 1:09:50 PM
Troy wrote:
> Have you ever thought that your "success" story is anything other than a example of how bad PB developers are when asked to deal with other technology? Or maybe it's an example of how far removed PB is from EVERYTHING else on the market? No. Didn't think so.

Keep in mind Troy that you're also a PB developer so you're painting 
yourself with that brush.

> 
> Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some DW.Net respect instead of this nonsense. Lastly, there is nothing "major" about Canada.

Canada is "major". You should educate yourself on a topic before making 
comments about it. With that said, go get yourself a PB book.


> 
> Troy
> 
> 
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:30:58 -0500, Chris Pollach <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote:
> 
>> Rufas;
>>
>>     FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided to do exactly what
>> you have just done 2 years ago and opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 at
>> that time). They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of their top
>> 10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they informed me that in the past year
>> they had deployed 3 new PB applications into production and zero VS into
>> production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard learning curve and not
>> nearly as productive as PB. They have now re-evaluated their change in tool
>> direction and are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-)
>>
> 

-- 

*********************************************************************************
www.PowerToTheBuilder.com

  - Free, full featured database development tool for ASE and SQL Server
  - Take control of your GUI with a free PB user control library
  - Get updates from by blog - www.PowerToTheBuilder.com/blog

*********************************************************************************
Submit a PowerBuilder Success Story
www.PowerToTheBuilder.com/success.aspx

*********************************************************************************
0
Brad
5/21/2008 1:49:34 PM
Sure, Chris is a big Sybase fan. But I think what he said is the fact. 
Instead of laugh PB, could you provide a concrete example show how .NET is 
better than PB like Richard provided before?  For example, more than one 
forms update in one transaction of web application. It will be constructive. 
Many audience here will be glad to see it.

Yoyo

"Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message 
news:op.ubh9invjs24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
> Have you ever thought that your "success" story is anything other than a 
> example of how bad PB developers are when asked to deal with other 
> technology? Or maybe it's an example of how far removed PB is from 
> EVERYTHING else on the market? No. Didn't think so.
>
> Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some DW.Net respect instead 
> of this nonsense. Lastly, there is nothing "major" about Canada.
>
> Troy
>
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:30:58 -0500, Chris Pollach 
> <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote:
>
>> Rufas;
>>
>>     FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided to do exactly 
>> what
>> you have just done 2 years ago and opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 
>> at
>> that time). They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of their 
>> top
>> 10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they informed me that in the past year
>> they had deployed 3 new PB applications into production and zero VS into
>> production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard learning curve and 
>> not
>> nearly as productive as PB. They have now re-evaluated their change in 
>> tool
>> direction and are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-)
>>
> 


0
Yoyo
5/21/2008 3:03:41 PM
On May 21, 12:04=A0am, J It <ign...@nospam.net> wrote:
> I don't think this is really the group for this but:
>
> We went down the DW.NET 2.5 path...even bought it... and well the end
> result was that it was too cumbersome to use. =A0It was much easier dare I=

> say quicker to use other native third-party.net controls.......
> Especially if you leverage .NET Frameworks.
>
> So to get back on topic here for this group.
>
> DW.NET is useful if that is more or less the only thing that you use for
> your data access layer, and your programmers are current or ex-pb
> programmers. =A0(Explaining the pbl/librarylist concept to a vb/C#
> programmer just doesn't work, plus the source-control issues)
>
> You can infact bypass the entire .net Data model and use a PB-style data
> layer using the Transaction, Datastore and datawindow objects, with the
> only change being that you are now coding in C# or VB instead of
> powerscript. =A0Some would call that a fantastic feature, others like me
> would not.....
>
> What should IMHO dw.net do:
>
> 1) Most of the gui improvements people scream PB should do.
> 2) Somehow incorporate most of the PFC style dw services into it natively.=

> 3) Deeply integrate the .NET 2.0 Data access model into it.
> 4) Remove Pbl concept.
> 5) Remove the datastore object, and use a DataTable instead.
>
>
>
> Rufas wrote:
> > The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there
> > is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB
> > towards the .Net area.
>
> > Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET
> > area. =A0We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now
> > with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual
> > Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with
> > DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward.
>
> > So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work
> > well together?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Most of the gui improvements people scream PB should do.
2) Somehow incorporate most of the PFC style dw services into it
natively.
-- My biggest disappointment is that Sybase did not keep improving the
Datawindow.  If only they kept adding propertie settings to the object
and building on its foundation, this whole converstion would be moot.
3) Deeply integrate the .NET 2.0 Data access model into it.
--- Bleh!  Why go thru that pain?  Do you really feel tthat the Data
Access is all that in .Net?  Good golly man...
4) Remove Pbl concept.
-- This may happen according to other posts
5) Remove the datastore object, and use a DataTable instead
---See #3

IMHO, the datawindow is truly unbeatable for creating business
applications.  But, I think it is too late.  Anyone remember the
lesson of what happen to the INGRES database?  Most critcs would agree
that the INGRES database in its heyday was hands down a better
platform than Oracle.  However, looky who the number 1 database is for
the past 10 years (or more)?
0
Joseph
5/21/2008 6:46:35 PM
Well I think he just agreed with my point.  DW.NET is too cumbersome to 
use as is.  Many of the PFC services that are there in PB, you get 
nothing like that in DW.NET.  You are basically left with coding it all 
from scratch, which is like going back 10 - 15 years in PB history. i.e 
iterating through the dw's and apply retrieve/update as required.

So if you think using DW.NET will save you time in a PB to true .NET 
migration, it most certainly won't.  And the result will probably be a 
bug-ridden mess.  The only real benefit is not having to re-layout 
reports, and re-using datobjects for data-bound window controls.

In our project it (dw.net) has been relegated to a one-time end-report 
converter from psr to pdf role.

So in short, If you are a pb shop with a .NET requirement, the choice is 
clear.

1) Stick to the PB.NET path if you can (Simplest way forward)
2) Abandon PB, send pb programmers back to vb/c# school, Rewrite 
everything and use better .NET equivalent third-party controls.

Troy wrote:
> Have you ever thought that your "success" story is anything other than a example of how bad PB developers are when asked to deal with other technology? Or maybe it's an example of how far removed PB is from EVERYTHING else on the market? No. Didn't think so.
> 
> Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some DW.Net respect instead of this nonsense. Lastly, there is nothing "major" about Canada.
> 
> Troy
> 
0
J
5/22/2008 1:26:05 AM
> Sure, Chris is a big Sybase fan. But I think what he said is the fact.
> Instead of laugh PB, could you provide a concrete example show how .NET is
> better than PB like Richard provided before?  For example, more than one
> forms update in one transaction of web application. It will be constructive.
> Many audience here will be glad to see it.
>
> Yoyo

Not exactly sure what you mean by "more than one forms update" in one transaction of a web app. You mean in one postback? All forms in the application are in the session so I can do anything I want to them. I've even seen a new fad as of late where folks are targeting pages in different browsers tabs in one transaction.  May I misunderstand your question because I dont see this as a big deal in .Net. What I see as the problem is the generated PB app not letting you have access to your web app. Welcome to code generators.

But since you want an example and I do not understand your request, I'll give another one web based. I can use a combination of HTTP filters (something you cant easily do in PB), web.config entries (that are not overwritten like in PB), .Net encryption and inherient ASP.Net forms based authentication methods to build a custom web authentication and authorization application. This application allows me to define custom roles and access privledges to web sites and their content simply by using standard ASP.Net configuration sections. But unlike standard ASP.Net evidence (usernames and passwords) I can validate off of anything I like including data in my database, xml files, web service calls etc. I then do not have to write code to determine "if" someone should be able to access a page or resource. ASP.Net does it for me. In essence I can extend the ASP.Net forms authentication security model to suite the roles my site visitors have in relation to our company. ~50 lines of code and  
~5 per directory/file config entry. I can then use one method to customize content based on user roll simply by calling the IsInRole("RoleName") method. Which means I can then, on the fly modify my visitors view of information to their need. It uses a whole lot of stuff Sybase thinks you don't need access too.

The power of the solution come from two things : 1) understanding .Net and 2) having a tool that lets me manipulate it easily.

If you want comparisions on when one is better than the other, it's best to stick to applications of the C/S type and WinForms. PB has no where near the functionality or soluton potential of ASP.Net on the web side.

Troy
0
Troy
5/22/2008 1:52:11 PM
On May 20, 12:50=A0pm, Rufas <thunderingqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there
> is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB
> towards the .Net area.
>
> Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET
> area. =A0We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now
> with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual
> Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with
> DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward.
>
> So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work
> well together?

You know what?  You decide.

Here is a link that claims the best third party tools for asp.net.
Prepare to be very disappointed, though.

http://www.ssw.com.au/ssw/Standards/DeveloperGeneral/WebdevelopmentToolsASPN=
et.aspx

 With dw.net, you can recreate most of application's client server
functionality.  Problem is, no one is offering any proof that dw.net
is being widely used as product. (DANGEROUS!!!)


0
Joseph
5/22/2008 7:49:10 PM
Yes, I mean more than one forms update in one postback in one browser while
in one transaction is a server side concept. It was requested by one guy in
another post. I also think this is a typical web applicaton example. Could
you video the entire develop process? See how productive it is? With html
datawindow and EAF.NET(my framework), it is simply can be realized.
Regarding authentication and authorization, I agree it is .NET's strength.

And I am glad to provide another story to prove develop tool is not
everything. Sometimes it depend on you and your customer's requirement. That
is, Workday beat out SAP and Oracle for Flextronics business
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8819

http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=521

In above article, I cite a paragraphy by Flextronics CIO David Smoley in the
InformationWeek story:
"What we've seen with object databases, is it gives you an incredible amount
of flexibility in how you access and manipulate data, which translates into
a much more powerful ability to create interfaces with less technical
people, and update and modify as necessary," he said. He likes that Workday
will "create and maintain interfaces [with benefits providers or other
partners] so that customers don't have to."
Workday is a startup and not a technology giant with strenght on application
domain knowledge. Workday use object databases not relational database. They
use .NET? Java? ORM?... I don't think so. But it not prevented workday from
beating out SAP and Oracle. I always push a concept. Focus on you and your
customer. Listen to what customers value. Do what you can. Sometimes what 
your effort could compensate
the weakness of tools.

Yoyo



"Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message
news:op.ubj549bts24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
>> Sure, Chris is a big Sybase fan. But I think what he said is the fact.
>> Instead of laugh PB, could you provide a concrete example show how .NET
>> is
>> better than PB like Richard provided before?  For example, more than one
>> forms update in one transaction of web application. It will be
>> constructive.
>> Many audience here will be glad to see it.
>>
>> Yoyo
>
> Not exactly sure what you mean by "more than one forms update" in one
> transaction of a web app. You mean in one postback? All forms in the
> application are in the session so I can do anything I want to them. I've
> even seen a new fad as of late where folks are targeting pages in
> different browsers tabs in one transaction.  May I misunderstand your
> question because I dont see this as a big deal in .Net. What I see as the
> problem is the generated PB app not letting you have access to your web
> app. Welcome to code generators.
>
> But since you want an example and I do not understand your request, I'll
> give another one web based. I can use a combination of HTTP filters
> (something you cant easily do in PB), web.config entries (that are not
> overwritten like in PB), .Net encryption and inherient ASP.Net forms based
> authentication methods to build a custom web authentication and
> authorization application. This application allows me to define custom
> roles and access privledges to web sites and their content simply by using
> standard ASP.Net configuration sections. But unlike standard ASP.Net
> evidence (usernames and passwords) I can validate off of anything I like
> including data in my database, xml files, web service calls etc. I then do
> not have to write code to determine "if" someone should be able to access
> a page or resource. ASP.Net does it for me. In essence I can extend the
> ASP.Net forms authentication security model to suite the roles my site
> visitors have in relation to our company. ~50 lines of code and
> ~5 per directory/file config entry. I can then use one method to customize
> content based on user roll simply by calling the IsInRole("RoleName")
> method. Which means I can then, on the fly modify my visitors view of
> information to their need. It uses a whole lot of stuff Sybase thinks you
> don't need access too.
>
> The power of the solution come from two things : 1) understanding .Net and
> 2) having a tool that lets me manipulate it easily.
>
> If you want comparisions on when one is better than the other, it's best
> to stick to applications of the C/S type and WinForms. PB has no where
> near the functionality or soluton potential of ASP.Net on the web side.
>
> Troy



0
Yoyo
5/24/2008 8:37:03 AM
Saying that to Troy is like waving a red cape at a bull. <g>

On 24 May 2008 01:37:03 -0700, "Yoyo Young" <young@public1.wx.js.cn>
wrote:

>"...which translates into a much more powerful ability to create interfaces with less technical
>people, and update and modify as necessary," 
0
Dave
5/24/2008 11:58:23 AM
I don't see where chris mentions that only PB developers
were involved in the migration to VS. In most cases rewrite
to VS involves developers experienced in VS and not just PB
developers.
..net is a steep learning curve even for hardcore microsoft
developers.The current C# application I am dealing with was
written by microsoft developers who have never worked with
powerbuilder. The way they deal with database updates is
laughable and I could have produced a much better solution
using dw.net. I do know that there a lot of 3rd party
controls in .net that can provide nearly the same
functionality as the datawindow, but the fact is that lot of
.net developers themselves are ignorant about using these
controls, due to the learning curve involved. It is wrong to
just single out PB developers. That would be hasty
generalization.

Regards,
SNS


> Have you ever thought that your "success" story is
> anything other than a example of how bad PB developers are
> when asked to deal with other technology? Or maybe it's an
> example of how far removed PB is from EVERYTHING else on
> the market? No. Didn't think so.
>
> Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some DW.Net
> respect instead of this nonsense. Lastly, there is nothing
> "major" about Canada.
>
> Troy
>
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:30:58 -0500, Chris Pollach
> <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote:
>
> > Rufas;
> >
> >     FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided
> > to do exactly what you have just done 2 years ago and
> > opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 at that time).
> They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of
> > their top 10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they
> > informed me that in the past year they had deployed 3
> > new PB applications into production and zero VS into
> production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard
> > learning curve and not nearly as productive as PB. They
> > have now re-evaluated their change in tool direction and
> are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-) >
>
0
SNS
5/25/2008 4:11:48 PM
"Yoyo Young" <young@public1.wx.js.cn> wrote in message 
news:4837d3af@forums-1-dub...
> In above article, I cite a paragraphy by Flextronics CIO David Smoley in 
> the
> InformationWeek story:
> "What we've seen with object databases, is it gives you an incredible 
> amount
> of flexibility in how you access and manipulate data, which translates 
> into
> a much more powerful ability to create interfaces with less technical
> people, and update and modify as necessary," he said. He likes that 
> Workday
> will "create and maintain interfaces [with benefits providers or other
> partners] so that customers don't have to."
> Workday is a startup and not a technology giant with strenght on 
> application
> domain knowledge. Workday use object databases not relational database. 
> They
> use .NET? Java? ORM?... I don't think so. But it not prevented workday 
> from
> beating out SAP and Oracle. I always push a concept. Focus on you and your
> customer. Listen to what customers value. Do what you can. Sometimes what 
> your effort could compensate
> the weakness of tools.
>

Yes - object databases are very interesting.  Obviously, they completely 
remove any need for an ORM, since the impedence mismatch (object/relational) 
no longer exists - it's a completely OO world.  It is my impression that PB 
fans are mostly determined to remain in the relational world. SaaS, with 
flexible, easily maintainable interfaces can, in some cases, be a great way 
to implement systems.  But what any of this has to do in any way, shape or 
form with PB and its future is completely beyond me.  And what in the world 
is your point when you start talking about making efforts to compensate for 
the weakness of tools?  In the end, of course, a tool is just a tool.  A 
chainsaw may be great for taking down large trees, but not very useful for 
fine woodwork.  PB might be a good choice for building some C/S apps, and 
perhaps getting some reports up on the web, or simple data entry forms.  It 
just plain sucks at building complex web apps.  A clever, skilled developer 
can manage to compensate for some weaknesses, but in my experience (which is 
not insignificant), the efforts required can be just as much or greater than 
that required to learn and use a different tool, and the end result will 
probably still be less than satisfactory.

There was a recent article in the NY Times entitled "The Computer Industry 
Comes With Built-In Term Limits".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/technology/18digi.htm

If you think of the predominance of C/S in the mid-90s as defining a 
"technological era" in which PB flourished, and which gave way to the era of 
the web, then perhaps the article is relevant to this topic.


0
Mark
5/25/2008 6:35:44 PM
 FWIW: Not only did they provide allot of MS educaion to the PB developers, 
but they also hired some high priced VS consultants as well. Even the 
consultants took 350% longer to build the same thing a PB developer could do 
with ease. To the end users, te use of the development tool was transparent. 
After the business people got te bill for the IT development with VS and aw 
the lack lustre application that was almost 1 year late - they pulled the 
plug.

  BTW: The enterprise version of VS tops out at about $10,000  Cdn per 
developer (ouch). MS lures you in with the express versions - but they sure 
get that back in the end!



<SNS> wrote in message news:48398fc4.6cf.1681692777@sybase.com...
>I don't see where chris mentions that only PB developers
> were involved in the migration to VS. In most cases rewrite
> to VS involves developers experienced in VS and not just PB
> developers.
> .net is a steep learning curve even for hardcore microsoft
> developers.The current C# application I am dealing with was
> written by microsoft developers who have never worked with
> powerbuilder. The way they deal with database updates is
> laughable and I could have produced a much better solution
> using dw.net. I do know that there a lot of 3rd party
> controls in .net that can provide nearly the same
> functionality as the datawindow, but the fact is that lot of
> net developers themselves are ignorant about using these
> controls, due to the learning curve involved. It is wrong to
> just single out PB developers. That would be hasty
> generalization.
>
> Regards,
> SNS
>
>
>> Have you ever thought that your "success" story is
>> anything other than a example of how bad PB developers are
>> when asked to deal with other technology? Or maybe it's an
>> example of how far removed PB is from EVERYTHING else on
>> the market? No. Didn't think so.
>>
>> Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some DW.Net
>> respect instead of this nonsense. Lastly, there is nothing
>> "major" about Canada.
>>
>> Troy
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:30:58 -0500, Chris Pollach
>> <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Rufas;
>> >
>> >     FWIW: A major Canadian government department decided
>> > to do exactly what you have just done 2 years ago and
>> > opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 at that time).
>> They have 8 mission critical systems currently out of
>> > their top 10 in PB. At the last OSUG meeting they
>> > informed me that in the past year they had deployed 3
>> > new PB applications into production and zero VS into
>> production. They found that VS and .Net were a hard
>> > learning curve and not nearly as productive as PB. They
>> > have now re-evaluated their change in tool direction and
>> are now moving back to PB.Net!  :-) >
>> 


0
Chris
5/26/2008 10:12:53 AM
<SNS> wrote in message news:48398fc4.6cf.1681692777@sybase.com...

> The way they deal with database updates is
> laughable

That's kind of interesting.  My impression is that LINQ would generally be 
the preferred way of dealing with database access going forward in the MS 
world.  Would you describe LINQ as "laughable"? 


0
Mark
5/26/2008 6:42:52 PM
But, unfortunately they are not using LINQ(Again a learning
curve) here. Their appproach takes you back to the vb 6.0
days which is far behind the datawindow. That was my point.

> <SNS> wrote in message
> news:48398fc4.6cf.1681692777@sybase.com...
>
> > The way they deal with database updates is
> > laughable
>
> That's kind of interesting.  My impression is that LINQ
> would generally be  the preferred way of dealing with
> database access going forward in the MS  world.  Would you
> describe LINQ as "laughable"?
>
>
0
SNS
5/27/2008 1:53:07 AM
Very true. When it comes to Business apps involving heavy
database interaction, a mid level PB developer achieves what
an advanced .net or java developer does,at a much lower
cost.See link below.

http://yakovfain.javadevelopersjournal.com/powerbuilder__developer_needs_some_direction.htm

Regards,
SNS

>  FWIW: Not only did they provide allot of MS educaion to
> the PB developers,  but they also hired some high priced
> VS consultants as well. Even the  consultants took 350%
> longer to build the same thing a PB developer could do
> with ease. To the end users, te use of the development
> tool was transparent.  After the business people got te
> bill for the IT development with VS and aw  the lack
> lustre application that was almost 1 year late - they
> pulled the  plug.
>
>   BTW: The enterprise version of VS tops out at about
> $10,000  Cdn per  developer (ouch). MS lures you in with
> the express versions - but they sure  get that back in the
> end!
>
>
>
> <SNS> wrote in message
> news:48398fc4.6cf.1681692777@sybase.com... >I don't see
> > where chris mentions that only PB developers were
> > involved in the migration to VS. In most cases rewrite
> to VS involves developers experienced in VS and not just
> > PB developers.
> > .net is a steep learning curve even for hardcore
> > microsoft developers.The current C# application I am
> > dealing with was written by microsoft developers who
> > have never worked with powerbuilder. The way they deal
> > with database updates is laughable and I could have
> > produced a much better solution using dw.net. I do know
> > that there a lot of 3rd party controls in .net that can
> > provide nearly the same functionality as the datawindow,
> > but the fact is that lot of net developers themselves
> > are ignorant about using these controls, due to the
> > learning curve involved. It is wrong to just single out
> > PB developers. That would be hasty generalization.
> >
> > Regards,
> > SNS
> >
> >
> >> Have you ever thought that your "success" story is
> >> anything other than a example of how bad PB developers
> are >> when asked to deal with other technology? Or maybe
> it's an >> example of how far removed PB is from
> EVERYTHING else on >> the market? No. Didn't think so.
> >>
> >> Why not just try and help the Op and salvage some
> DW.Net >> respect instead of this nonsense. Lastly, there
> is nothing >> "major" about Canada.
> >>
> >> Troy
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 May 2008 07:30:58 -0500, Chris Pollach
> >> <cpollach@travel-net.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rufas;
> >> >
> >> >     FWIW: A major Canadian government department
> decided >> > to do exactly what you have just done 2 years
> ago and >> > opted to move away from PB to VS (2205 at
> that time). >> They have 8 mission critical systems
> currently out of >> > their top 10 in PB. At the last OSUG
> meeting they >> > informed me that in the past year they
> had deployed 3 >> > new PB applications into production
> and zero VS into >> production. They found that VS and
> Net were a hard >> > learning curve and not nearly as
> productive as PB. They >> > have now re-evaluated their
> change in tool direction and >> are now moving back to
> PB.Net!  :-) > >>
>
>
0
SNS
5/27/2008 2:04:42 AM
That's for Team Suite and a MSDN Premium edition. That includes all versions of VS as in Team Architect, Team Developer, Team Test and Database edition. It also gets you a CAL for Team Sever and dev copies of almost everything MS makes. You don't have to have it all but what you do need is someone who can figure out what you do need if that's too hard for you.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/bb841434.aspx

If you have no interest in Team System, which a lot of smaller shops don't, you can take that 2.5K option at the bottom or if you really want just VS and MSDN professional you can get that for 1.2K.

Once again, try understanding your competition.

Troy


>   BTW: The enterprise version of VS tops out at about $10,000  Cdn per
> developer (ouch). MS lures you in with the express versions - but they sure
> get that back in the end!
>
>
>
0
Troy
5/27/2008 1:17:15 PM
I agree that development should be made as easy as possible but I also think that the developer needs to understand what he or she is doing and what they get out of various approaches to a soluton. We have had this discussion before in talks about PB dev-enabling business analysts. This is where my views differ from Yakov's.

I think that in a organization we each play a role and and each role serves a different purpose. In much the same way that I would not ask the guy using the nail gun to design the entire house (even though a lot can), I would not ask the business analyst to design a software system. In my world, the developer and the BA are two distictly different roles that serve two purposes. To ask one to take on the responsibilities of the other will eventually lead to that person having to make a choice between the two when it's obvious those two roles should never be in conflict. One states the requirements, the other specializes in the implementation of those requirements through the manipulation of technology. If the same person, where do I learn? Do I focus on learning the evolving business or do I focus on learning evolving technology? To do both means I will not be as good at one as I could be.

To give you another more topical example, take PB's many failed attempts at web apps. Do those who are now porting their CS apps to WebForms understand web development and it's many pitfalls? We were not even out of 11 beta when the rash of "OMG the POSTBACKs are killing me" discussions started. Web Developers know how to design for this. Business Analysts turned devs only see it as a result of hitting a "generate me a .Net web form app." That is a small example. Now consider something much more risky like Web App security. You think your customers/users are going to care if "that's the way Sybase does it?". I'm not meaning to imply that PB generates unsecure web apps, but would you know if it did? 85% of web apps are unsecure, not because of the tool but because of the developer. PB actually goes contradictory to Yakov's point in that it makes it "easier" for use to take apps not designed for web use and use them there.

PB, VB and the like made a mess of boundaries between roles. To say that PB gives one a advantage over .Net is possible (depending on conerns) in the confines of CS applications which is what Yakov was trying to say. PB folks love to make this argument because it fits them and their style. Most outright reject other development styles because PB doesnt fit there. The arguement doesn't hold water as long as Sybase continues to try and push distributed development using EA and web development using PB. VS along with .Net, and Java along with many tools are much better at those type approaches. PB will be judged for what Sybase claims it can do..not what people actually use it for.

So to the "90% of corporate programmers do not need to be computer scientists....PowerBuilder or VB is more than enough!" I say that if you give computer scientist either one of those tools they have the potential to be better-faster than those who backed into the craft. After all, its just a tool. But make no mistake, when things get hard (and they usually do) it's those very same people that you claim you don't need that come in to take care of things. They do not use PB for these tasks because they know how to pick the right tool for the job.

Troy

On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:04:42 -0500, <SNS> wrote:

> Very true. When it comes to Business apps involving heavy
> database interaction, a mid level PB developer achieves what
> an advanced .net or java developer does,at a much lower
> cost.See link below.
>
> http://yakovfain.javadevelopersjournal.com/powerbuilder__developer_needs_some_direction.htm
>
> Regards,
> SNS
>
0
Troy
5/27/2008 2:08:35 PM
LoL...nah..not really..it actually works in my favor because what I have seen is that if you give those "more technical" the same tool that those "less technical" use, they do more with it :)

On Sat, 24 May 2008 06:58:23 -0500, Dave Fish [TeamSybase] <n0Spam__dfish@sybase.com> wrote:

> Saying that to Troy is like waving a red cape at a bull. <g>
>
> On 24 May 2008 01:37:03 -0700, "Yoyo Young" <young@public1.wx.js.cn>
> wrote:
>
>> "...which translates into a much more powerful ability to create interfaces with less technical
>> people, and update and modify as necessary,"
>

0
Troy
5/27/2008 2:17:52 PM
The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is all
.net developers are not computer scientists. Microsoft may
provide the tools, but how may developers do you think know
how to use them ? Despite all the tools provided in .net,
many still use the vb6 approach to development and these
people are are not from a powerbuilder background. To use
them effectively and to be as productive as a powerbuilder
developer involves a steep learning curve and unfortunately
few .net developers belong in this category. The example
given by chris is a testament to this fact.

Regards,
SNS

>
> So to the "90% of corporate programmers do not need to be
> computer scientists....PowerBuilder or VB is more than
> enough!" I say that if you give computer scientist either
> one of those tools they have the potential to be
> better-faster than those who backed into the craft. After
> all, its just a tool. But make no mistake, when things get
> hard (and they usually do) it's those very same people
> that you claim you don't need that come in to take care of
> things. They do not use PB for these tasks because they
> know how to pick the right tool for the job.
>
> Troy
>
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:04:42 -0500, <SNS> wrote:
>
> > Very true. When it comes to Business apps involving
> > heavy database interaction, a mid level PB developer
> > achieves what an advanced .net or java developer does,at
> > a much lower cost.See link below.
> >
> >
>
http://yakovfain.javadevelopersjournal.com/powerbuilder__developer_needs_some_direction.htm
> >
> > Regards,
> > SNS
> >
0
SNS
5/27/2008 4:06:48 PM
In article <483c3198.5a00.1681692777@sybase.com>, SNS says...
> The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is all
> net developers are not computer scientists. Microsoft may
> provide the tools, but how may developers do you think know
> how to use them ? Despite all the tools provided in .net,
> many still use the vb6 approach to development and these
> people are are not from a powerbuilder background. To use
> them effectively and to be as productive as a powerbuilder
> developer involves a steep learning curve and unfortunately
> few .net developers belong in this category. The example
> given by chris is a testament to this fact.
> 

It sounds like you're saying that PB is a good tool for developers who 
have little skill or talent at software development and who lack the 
desire or capacity to learn new technologies.  Or are you saying 
something different?
0
Mark
5/27/2008 4:49:47 PM
That is a misintrepretation. Carefully read the post
below.PowerBuilder developers are totally out of the picture
here. I was referring to .net developers( excludes
powerbuilder developers) that have naturally moved from vb
6.0, yet do  not know how to use the tools that comes with
.net and still use the vb 6.0 approach . Unfortunately,
major chunk of microsoft developers belong to this category.
That is why we hear of so many failed conversion
efforts(From client server(PB) to WEB(java, .net etc) like
the one listed by chris. Technology can be useful only if
you know how to use them and to use them effectively in .net
or java involves a steep learning curve(to get the
equivalent functionality of a client server PB app) at the
cost of productivity.


Whether PB is a good tool for developers who  have little
skill or talent at software development is a different
debate altogether.

Regards,
SNS
> In article <483c3198.5a00.1681692777@sybase.com>, SNS
> > says... The point I was trying to make in my earlier
> > post is all net developers are not computer scientists.
> > Microsoft may provide the tools, but how may developers
> > do you think know how to use them ? Despite all the
> > tools provided in .net, many still use the vb6 approach
> > to development and these people are are not from a
> > powerbuilder background. To use them effectively and to
> > be as productive as a powerbuilder developer involves a
> > steep learning curve and unfortunately few .net
> > developers belong in this category. The example given by
> > chris is a testament to this fact.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that PB is a good tool for
> developers who  have little skill or talent at software
> development and who lack the  desire or capacity to learn
> new technologies.  Or are you saying  something different?
0
SNS
5/27/2008 5:20:23 PM
IMHO the learning curve for PB is both shorter and less steep than that for 
other tools. Like playing the guitar - you get to kumbaya pretty quickly, 
but it still takes some work to get to Layla.

<SNS> wrote in message news:483c42d7.5ecd.1681692777@sybase.com...
> That is a misintrepretation. Carefully read the post
> below.PowerBuilder developers are totally out of the picture
> here. I was referring to .net developers( excludes
> powerbuilder developers) that have naturally moved from vb
> 6.0, yet do  not know how to use the tools that comes with
> net and still use the vb 6.0 approach . Unfortunately,
> major chunk of microsoft developers belong to this category.
> That is why we hear of so many failed conversion
> efforts(From client server(PB) to WEB(java, .net etc) like
> the one listed by chris. Technology can be useful only if
> you know how to use them and to use them effectively in .net
> or java involves a steep learning curve(to get the
> equivalent functionality of a client server PB app) at the
> cost of productivity.
>
>
> Whether PB is a good tool for developers who  have little
> skill or talent at software development is a different
> debate altogether.
>
> Regards,
> SNS
>> In article <483c3198.5a00.1681692777@sybase.com>, SNS
>> > says... The point I was trying to make in my earlier
>> > post is all net developers are not computer scientists.
>> > Microsoft may provide the tools, but how may developers
>> > do you think know how to use them ? Despite all the
>> > tools provided in .net, many still use the vb6 approach
>> > to development and these people are are not from a
>> > powerbuilder background. To use them effectively and to
>> > be as productive as a powerbuilder developer involves a
>> > steep learning curve and unfortunately few .net
>> > developers belong in this category. The example given by
>> > chris is a testament to this fact.
>>
>> It sounds like you're saying that PB is a good tool for
>> developers who  have little skill or talent at software
>> development and who lack the  desire or capacity to learn
>> new technologies.  Or are you saying  something different? 


0
Jerry
5/27/2008 5:55:30 PM
one more article comparing design elegance vs productivity

http://pbdj.sys-con.com/read/105375.htm

Regards,
SNS



> In article <483c3198.5a00.1681692777@sybase.com>, SNS
> > says... The point I was trying to make in my earlier
> > post is all net developers are not computer scientists.
> > Microsoft may provide the tools, but how may developers
> > do you think know how to use them ? Despite all the
> > tools provided in .net, many still use the vb6 approach
> > to development and these people are are not from a
> > powerbuilder background. To use them effectively and to
> > be as productive as a powerbuilder developer involves a
> > steep learning curve and unfortunately few .net
> > developers belong in this category. The example given by
> > chris is a testament to this fact.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that PB is a good tool for
> developers who  have little skill or talent at software
> development and who lack the  desire or capacity to learn
> new technologies.  Or are you saying  something different?
0
SNS
5/27/2008 6:18:22 PM
.... because they know how to pick the right tool for the job ...

exactly!  So, why bash 'PB' and C/S development?  and for those that think 
C/S is dead, I have quite a few clients that will shoot you if you suggest 
'Oh we can do that in a browser for X in Y weeks ...'  - most have been down 
that road and most have spent way too much money for nothing.  These clients 
are contructions companies, some are engineering firms, some are government 
agencies, and some are health authorities.  PB allows me to do my job and do 
my job as a very productive programmer.  Many clients have 'disconnected 
workforces' ... and they use the exact same application 'connected' or 
'disconnected' ... no need for a browser.

Question for Web Apps... this is my ignorance ...

Can you build a WEB application that does not rely on the mouse?  Meaning, 
can you build me an application that is entiring keyboard feed - no clicking 
and picking required, if desired the user can, but if the user wants, can 
the web based application be 100% mouse free? Shortcut keys, reference keys, 
function keys  ... no mouse.  I see improved user input 10 folder for most 
applications when the user use the key board and forgets about the mouse ... 
time keepers, unit clerks, general foreman, triage nurses, engineers, emerg 
room docs, accountants, moa's ... all are more productive when only using 
the keyboard.  So, for me, any mission-critical enterprise application that 
does not support 'quick' keyboard navigation fails the end user and the 
fails the client.  If you are entering or filling out 1-off forms once or 
twice a day or requesting kpi reports , sure, limit the user to mouse; but 
if you are processing 300+ encounters a day or entering time cards for 120+ 
tradesman a day, you need as much time saving as possible ... and each time 
the user goes to the mouse, you cost them 1 to 3 seconds.

Jeff.


"Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message 
news:op.ubtf8ld5s24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
>I agree that development should be made as easy as possible but I also 
>think that the developer needs to understand what he or she is doing and 
>what they get out of various approaches to a soluton. We have had this 
>discussion before in talks about PB dev-enabling business analysts. This is 
>where my views differ from Yakov's.
>
> I think that in a organization we each play a role and and each role 
> serves a different purpose. In much the same way that I would not ask the 
> guy using the nail gun to design the entire house (even though a lot can), 
> I would not ask the business analyst to design a software system. In my 
> world, the developer and the BA are two distictly different roles that 
> serve two purposes. To ask one to take on the responsibilities of the 
> other will eventually lead to that person having to make a choice between 
> the two when it's obvious those two roles should never be in conflict. One 
> states the requirements, the other specializes in the implementation of 
> those requirements through the manipulation of technology. If the same 
> person, where do I learn? Do I focus on learning the evolving business or 
> do I focus on learning evolving technology? To do both means I will not be 
> as good at one as I could be.
>
> To give you another more topical example, take PB's many failed attempts 
> at web apps. Do those who are now porting their CS apps to WebForms 
> understand web development and it's many pitfalls? We were not even out of 
> 11 beta when the rash of "OMG the POSTBACKs are killing me" discussions 
> started. Web Developers know how to design for this. Business Analysts 
> turned devs only see it as a result of hitting a "generate me a .Net web 
> form app." That is a small example. Now consider something much more risky 
> like Web App security. You think your customers/users are going to care if 
> "that's the way Sybase does it?". I'm not meaning to imply that PB 
> generates unsecure web apps, but would you know if it did? 85% of web apps 
> are unsecure, not because of the tool but because of the developer. PB 
> actually goes contradictory to Yakov's point in that it makes it "easier" 
> for use to take apps not designed for web use and use them there.
>
> PB, VB and the like made a mess of boundaries between roles. To say that 
> PB gives one a advantage over .Net is possible (depending on conerns) in 
> the confines of CS applications which is what Yakov was trying to say. PB 
> folks love to make this argument because it fits them and their style. 
> Most outright reject other development styles because PB doesnt fit there. 
> The arguement doesn't hold water as long as Sybase continues to try and 
> push distributed development using EA and web development using PB. VS 
> along with .Net, and Java along with many tools are much better at those 
> type approaches. PB will be judged for what Sybase claims it can do..not 
> what people actually use it for.
>
> So to the "90% of corporate programmers do not need to be computer 
> scientists....PowerBuilder or VB is more than enough!" I say that if you 
> give computer scientist either one of those tools they have the potential 
> to be better-faster than those who backed into the craft. After all, its 
> just a tool. But make no mistake, when things get hard (and they usually 
> do) it's those very same people that you claim you don't need that come in 
> to take care of things. They do not use PB for these tasks because they 
> know how to pick the right tool for the job.
>
> Troy
>
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:04:42 -0500, <SNS> wrote:
>
>> Very true. When it comes to Business apps involving heavy
>> database interaction, a mid level PB developer achieves what
>> an advanced .net or java developer does,at a much lower
>> cost.See link below.
>>
>> http://yakovfain.javadevelopersjournal.com/powerbuilder__developer_needs_some_direction.htm
>>
>> Regards,
>> SNS
>> 


0
jeff
5/27/2008 6:46:30 PM
In article <483c5706$1@forums-1-dub>, "jeff" <jhersey at allnorth dottt 
com> says...
> ... because they know how to pick the right tool for the job ...
> 
> exactly!  So, why bash 'PB' and C/S development?  and for those that think 
> C/S is dead, I have quite a few clients that will shoot you if you suggest 
> 'Oh we can do that in a browser for X in Y weeks ...'  - most have been down 
> that road and most have spent way too much money for nothing.  These clients 
> are contructions companies, some are engineering firms, some are government 
> agencies, and some are health authorities.  PB allows me to do my job and do 
> my job as a very productive programmer.  Many clients have 'disconnected 
> workforces' ... and they use the exact same application 'connected' or 
> 'disconnected' ... no need for a browser.
> 

I agree that web browsers are in many ways inferior ways to deliver 
applications.  But they are sometimes the best way that exists to 
deliver an application to a very wide audience that have their own 
machines and software.  Just a fact of life.  

If Sybase were to simply make the argument that PB is a good tool for 
building C/S apps, and that C/S apps are the best way to go in some 
cases, I would say that makes some sense.  But they seem to push an idea 
that you can simply take your C/S app, make a few tweaks, push a button 
and out pops a web app.  IMHO, that's BS.

Some would argue that web apps are more difficult to build but easier to 
deploy, upgrade and maintain.  That's a different argument, and people 
can come to different conclusions about that.  

Every situation is unique.  Like every other tool, PB is very good at 
some things and really terrible at others.  Focus on the strengths and 
acknowledge the limitations.  When people post stories about how the 
project that used TechnologyX failed after a year of effort, and then 
they moved to PB, and it was done overnight, without any discussion of 
the details of what they were trying to accomplish, it makes them look 
like snake oil salesmen.

0
Mark
5/27/2008 7:58:46 PM
> Can you build a WEB application that does not rely on the mouse?  Meaning, 
> can you build me an application that is entiring keyboard feed - no 
> clicking and picking required, if desired the user can, but if the user 
> wants, can the web based application be 100% mouse free? Shortcut keys, 
> reference keys, function keys  ... no mouse.

Actually, if, by "WEB application", you mean any application that runs 
inside a browser, the answer is yes.  It is possible to trap keyboard events 
using javascript.  In fact, I think apps built with Appeon and PB 11 
winforms do exactly that - although they haven't finished the job and made 
it work across different browsers.  The tools are still rather primitive 
today, but better frameworks to abstract away the nasty stuff are emerging. 
Google Web Toolkit has been out for a while, making it pretty easy for Java 
programmers to create very responsive user interfaces that run in a browser.

Today I noticed an article with a rather intriguing title:

Client-Server computing: The Future Web?
http://www.infoq.com/news/2008/05/sproutcore_future_web

He says:

"The smart money is on client-server - coming soon to a browser near you."

Looks like some interesting developments ahead. 


0
Mark
5/28/2008 2:18:13 AM
Troy,

If you are going to tell the truth, tell the whole truth... total ownership 
cost please.

MS VS 200x is just a shell for writing VB code (yes, there are controls, but 
these are the base level controls ... anybody use MS bare bones Gridview in 
a production system?).  Please do not forget the third-party add-ons you 
will require for you tool-box in order to have any productivity at all with 
VS:

- Datagrid control ...
- FreeForm designer control ...
- graphing control ...
- report writer or reporting control ...

DevExpress Suite is 1300 US + 500 a year maintenance fees.

So you are looking at 1.2K + 1.3K minimum ... unless you decide to roll you 
own Grid Control and FreeForm designer, use Crystal that ships with VS.

So, if you are going to quote or budget for a VS developer, the total 
startup cost is much more than the 1.2 for a VS Pro addition.

Jeff

"Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message 
news:op.ubtdu1xss24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
> That's for Team Suite and a MSDN Premium edition. That includes all 
> versions of VS as in Team Architect, Team Developer, Team Test and 
> Database edition. It also gets you a CAL for Team Sever and dev copies of 
> almost everything MS makes. You don't have to have it all but what you do 
> need is someone who can figure out what you do need if that's too hard for 
> you.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/bb841434.aspx
>
> If you have no interest in Team System, which a lot of smaller shops 
> don't, you can take that 2.5K option at the bottom or if you really want 
> just VS and MSDN professional you can get that for 1.2K.
>
> Once again, try understanding your competition.
>
> Troy
>
>
>>   BTW: The enterprise version of VS tops out at about $10,000  Cdn per
>> developer (ouch). MS lures you in with the express versions - but they 
>> sure
>> get that back in the end!
>>
>>
>> 


0
jeff
5/28/2008 12:21:40 PM
I did..as the rest depends on your needs. For example, we have had VS.Net since its first beta and have never used any third party controls on the web side. However, on the winform side we use Infragistics. This is no different from any other tool as we also use a third party spell checker and what not for our PB application.

For reporting we do just fine with the Crystal viewer as our enterprise reporting solution is Business Objects and we use a little Reporting Services depending on the app.
For graphing, as I said above, we use infragistics. No graphing needs on the web side.
We don't have a need for FreeForm.

Btw, Chris wasn't talking about TCO and the last time I checked VS allows you to do both VB and C# and comes with plenty of controls for most of your application needs. If you want to increase productivity then sure you can invest in third party but it alwasy helps to know "why" you need them first. Just blindly saying buy VS and third party control set X is crazy.

Troy

0
Troy
5/28/2008 12:56:35 PM
I didn't read that from his post. I did read it involves a step learning 
curve, which does not imply someone does not want to learn. Management does 
care about the learning curve. They need to hire and train developers to 
build and maintain their systems.Training someone on a tool that has a step 
learning curve takes more time and money. If you get a "great developer" 
Learns fast, picks up the concept faster then his peers, goes future then 
his peers leaves the organization to be a consultant. So now management is 
spending money to develop consultants and get left with the OK developers. 
That what I read from step learning curve, not a fear to learn.

I saw the exact same behavior with PowerBuilder, Java and now with C#.

-- 
Dean Jones
CEO
PowerObjects
http://www.powerobjects.com
(612) 339-3355 Ext. 112

TeamSybase
* * Think Sybase * *


"Mark Maslow" <mark.maslow@sierraclub.org> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22a5db6dd6384aa4989686@forums.sybase.com...
> In article <483c3198.5a00.1681692777@sybase.com>, SNS says...
>> The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is all
>> net developers are not computer scientists. Microsoft may
>> provide the tools, but how may developers do you think know
>> how to use them ? Despite all the tools provided in .net,
>> many still use the vb6 approach to development and these
>> people are are not from a powerbuilder background. To use
>> them effectively and to be as productive as a powerbuilder
>> developer involves a steep learning curve and unfortunately
>> few .net developers belong in this category. The example
>> given by chris is a testament to this fact.
>>
>
> It sounds like you're saying that PB is a good tool for developers who
> have little skill or talent at software development and who lack the
> desire or capacity to learn new technologies.  Or are you saying
> something different? 


0
Dean
5/28/2008 1:16:52 PM
Oh yes, the DataGridView. I'm slowly turning it into a datawindow...one 
function at a time...



jeff wrote:
> Troy,
> 
> If you are going to tell the truth, tell the whole truth... total ownership 
> cost please.
> 
> MS VS 200x is just a shell for writing VB code (yes, there are controls, but 
> these are the base level controls ... anybody use MS bare bones Gridview in 
> a production system?).  Please do not forget the third-party add-ons you 
> will require for you tool-box in order to have any productivity at all with 
> VS:
> 
> - Datagrid control ...
> - FreeForm designer control ...
> - graphing control ...
> - report writer or reporting control ...
> 
> DevExpress Suite is 1300 US + 500 a year maintenance fees.
> 
> So you are looking at 1.2K + 1.3K minimum ... unless you decide to roll you 
> own Grid Control and FreeForm designer, use Crystal that ships with VS.
> 
> So, if you are going to quote or budget for a VS developer, the total 
> startup cost is much more than the 1.2 for a VS Pro addition.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> "Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message 
> news:op.ubtdu1xss24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
>> That's for Team Suite and a MSDN Premium edition. That includes all 
>> versions of VS as in Team Architect, Team Developer, Team Test and 
>> Database edition. It also gets you a CAL for Team Sever and dev copies of 
>> almost everything MS makes. You don't have to have it all but what you do 
>> need is someone who can figure out what you do need if that's too hard for 
>> you.
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/bb841434.aspx
>>
>> If you have no interest in Team System, which a lot of smaller shops 
>> don't, you can take that 2.5K option at the bottom or if you really want 
>> just VS and MSDN professional you can get that for 1.2K.
>>
>> Once again, try understanding your competition.
>>
>> Troy
>>
>>
>>>   BTW: The enterprise version of VS tops out at about $10,000  Cdn per
>>> developer (ouch). MS lures you in with the express versions - but they 
>>> sure
>>> get that back in the end!
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 

-- 

*********************************************************************************
www.PowerToTheBuilder.com

  - Free, full featured database development tool for ASE and SQL Server
  - Take control of your GUI with a free PB user control library
  - Get updates from by blog - www.PowerToTheBuilder.com/blog

*********************************************************************************
Submit a PowerBuilder Success Story
www.PowerToTheBuilder.com/success.aspx

*********************************************************************************
0
Brad
5/28/2008 1:36:59 PM
Mark Maslow wrote:

> I agree that web browsers are in many ways inferior ways to deliver 
> applications.  But they are sometimes the best way that exists to 
> deliver an application to a very wide audience that have their own 
> machines and software.  Just a fact of life.  

  The nice thing about web apps is that there's no deployable. That's a
good thing for us, where our users are scattered across the U.S., and
typically don't have administrator privliges on their computers. We'd
have to go 3 tier anyway, since there's no way we're sticking our
database on the internet, and having a browser based client really
lowers what the client needs to install.
  This doesn't necessarily mean that it's all HTML. At my last
employer, the internet team used Flash for their client (everyone has
flash on their browser), and the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center uses a web
based Java client. (It requires the user have a particular version of
Java installed locally, however.)
  The approach has a lot of limitations, but it's a winning approach
for "here, I want you to run my software to do business with me"
situations.

-- 

Sigless...
0
Mike
5/28/2008 4:11:43 PM
In article <483d5b44$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones" 
<dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
> I didn't read that from his post. I did read it involves a step learning 
> curve, which does not imply someone does not want to learn. Management does 
> care about the learning curve. They need to hire and train developers to 
> build and maintain their systems.Training someone on a tool that has a step 
> learning curve takes more time and money. If you get a "great developer" 
> Learns fast, picks up the concept faster then his peers, goes future then 
> his peers leaves the organization to be a consultant. So now management is 
> spending money to develop consultants and get left with the OK developers. 
> That what I read from step learning curve, not a fear to learn.
> 
> I saw the exact same behavior with PowerBuilder, Java and now with C#.
> 
> 
I suppose that a lot of managers think that way.  It more or less 
guarantees that you end up with, at best, OK developers.  And perhaps 
that is good enough for many places.  I've been working for the same 
organization for over 20 years now.  I'm not going to glorify myself as 
being "great", but I do have a long track record of successfully 
incorporating new technologies that better serve the organization.  I 
really enjoy learning new technologies.  I read and study and take 
classes on my own time.  One of the reasons I have not felt the need to 
go elsewhere is that I'm given the opportunity to incorporate new tools 
and technologies when I think they can provide value.  The times when 
I've been tempted to leave are times when things stopped moving forward.  
I guess I'm just very lucky to have found a niche where I get to do the 
kind of work I like, and my employer finds enough value in it to 
compensate me reasonably well.
0
Mark
5/28/2008 5:30:04 PM
Very interesting coming from a guy who runs a consulting company..so if we just hired consultants such as your group first, then we would not waste our time and money on internal staff that is just going to leave, right?

Or, some company can take your work, market it, sell a ton of it and then sell-out to another company and lay off the developers. In which case your loyalty to them will be rewarded with a pink slip and a baked ham. Meanwhile the executives get their golden parachutes and spend two of their six paid months in Jamaca sorting through this difficult buy-out period.

Damn, is loyalty just dead now days?

Troy


On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:16:52 -0500, Dean Jones <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> wrote:

> I didn't read that from his post. I did read it involves a step learning
> curve, which does not imply someone does not want to learn. Management does
> care about the learning curve. They need to hire and train developers to
> build and maintain their systems.Training someone on a tool that has a step
> learning curve takes more time and money. If you get a "great developer"
> Learns fast, picks up the concept faster then his peers, goes future then
> his peers leaves the organization to be a consultant. So now management is
> spending money to develop consultants and get left with the OK developers.
> That what I read from step learning curve, not a fear to learn.
>
> I saw the exact same behavior with PowerBuilder, Java and now with C#.
>
0
Troy
5/28/2008 6:27:27 PM
If the company didn't provide training, but I learned something on my own, 
I'm sure not going to feel that the company has any particular claim to that 
knowledge, and will be at least willing to listen if another organization 
offers a better deal.
I've seen layoffs in companies where you never would have expected them. 
Loyalty isn't dead, it was just an illusion in the first place.

"Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message 
news:op.ubvmv3nos24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
> Very interesting coming from a guy who runs a consulting company..so if we 
> just hired consultants such as your group first, then we would not waste 
> our time and money on internal staff that is just going to leave, right?
>
> Or, some company can take your work, market it, sell a ton of it and then 
> sell-out to another company and lay off the developers. In which case your 
> loyalty to them will be rewarded with a pink slip and a baked ham. 
> Meanwhile the executives get their golden parachutes and spend two of 
> their six paid months in Jamaca sorting through this difficult buy-out 
> period.
>
> Damn, is loyalty just dead now days?
>
> Troy
>
>
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:16:52 -0500, Dean Jones 
> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't read that from his post. I did read it involves a step learning
>> curve, which does not imply someone does not want to learn. Management 
>> does
>> care about the learning curve. They need to hire and train developers to
>> build and maintain their systems.Training someone on a tool that has a 
>> step
>> learning curve takes more time and money. If you get a "great developer"
>> Learns fast, picks up the concept faster then his peers, goes future then
>> his peers leaves the organization to be a consultant. So now management 
>> is
>> spending money to develop consultants and get left with the OK 
>> developers.
>> That what I read from step learning curve, not a fear to learn.
>>
>> I saw the exact same behavior with PowerBuilder, Java and now with C#.
>> 


0
Jerry
5/28/2008 6:48:29 PM
Mark I don't believe any one in this forum would question your technical 
ability. I would hire you in a minute.

I was just trying to bring in the business side of the equation. I have been 
in many different organizations around the US and overseas. I have seen a 
lot of very poor developers that have little talent.

A simple business rule is to define your process so well that you can hire 
the cheapest labor available to perform the process. This is happening in 
the IT world. I see fewer and fewer "engineers" every year.

-- 
Dean Jones
CEO
PowerObjects
http://www.powerobjects.com
(612) 339-3355 Ext. 112

TeamSybase
* * Think Sybase * *


"Mark Maslow" <mark.maslow@sierraclub.org> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22a736789e400e61989688@forums.sybase.com...
> In article <483d5b44$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones"
> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
>> I didn't read that from his post. I did read it involves a step learning
>> curve, which does not imply someone does not want to learn. Management 
>> does
>> care about the learning curve. They need to hire and train developers to
>> build and maintain their systems.Training someone on a tool that has a 
>> step
>> learning curve takes more time and money. If you get a "great developer"
>> Learns fast, picks up the concept faster then his peers, goes future then
>> his peers leaves the organization to be a consultant. So now management 
>> is
>> spending money to develop consultants and get left with the OK 
>> developers.
>> That what I read from step learning curve, not a fear to learn.
>>
>> I saw the exact same behavior with PowerBuilder, Java and now with C#.
>>
>>
> I suppose that a lot of managers think that way.  It more or less
> guarantees that you end up with, at best, OK developers.  And perhaps
> that is good enough for many places.  I've been working for the same
> organization for over 20 years now.  I'm not going to glorify myself as
> being "great", but I do have a long track record of successfully
> incorporating new technologies that better serve the organization.  I
> really enjoy learning new technologies.  I read and study and take
> classes on my own time.  One of the reasons I have not felt the need to
> go elsewhere is that I'm given the opportunity to incorporate new tools
> and technologies when I think they can provide value.  The times when
> I've been tempted to leave are times when things stopped moving forward.
> I guess I'm just very lucky to have found a niche where I get to do the
> kind of work I like, and my employer finds enough value in it to
> compensate me reasonably well. 


0
Dean
5/29/2008 1:55:40 PM
Not sure where all that came from.

Again I'm just adding the business side of the equation. I said nothing 
about how I hire or treat employees.

I have said it before: Developers love to develop, if given the opportunity 
they would write a new spread sheet program in Java or C# if given the 
opportunity. Apply the most recent design patterns and OOP techniques. No 
matter how well he/she does the job you cannot justify the ROI.

This is the reason I bring up the business side of the argument. The time it 
takes to train a companies staff if very important.

-- 
Dean Jones
CEO
PowerObjects
http://www.powerobjects.com
(612) 339-3355 Ext. 112

TeamSybase
* * Think Sybase * *


"Troy" <troy-no-spam@onesplace.com> wrote in message 
news:op.ubvmv3nos24s3e@bhm-is-td-l1.corporate.local...
> Very interesting coming from a guy who runs a consulting company..so if we 
> just hired consultants such as your group first, then we would not waste 
> our time and money on internal staff that is just going to leave, right?
>
> Or, some company can take your work, market it, sell a ton of it and then 
> sell-out to another company and lay off the developers. In which case your 
> loyalty to them will be rewarded with a pink slip and a baked ham. 
> Meanwhile the executives get their golden parachutes and spend two of 
> their six paid months in Jamaca sorting through this difficult buy-out 
> period.
>
> Damn, is loyalty just dead now days?
>
> Troy
>
>
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:16:52 -0500, Dean Jones 
> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't read that from his post. I did read it involves a step learning
>> curve, which does not imply someone does not want to learn. Management 
>> does
>> care about the learning curve. They need to hire and train developers to
>> build and maintain their systems.Training someone on a tool that has a 
>> step
>> learning curve takes more time and money. If you get a "great developer"
>> Learns fast, picks up the concept faster then his peers, goes future then
>> his peers leaves the organization to be a consultant. So now management 
>> is
>> spending money to develop consultants and get left with the OK 
>> developers.
>> That what I read from step learning curve, not a fear to learn.
>>
>> I saw the exact same behavior with PowerBuilder, Java and now with C#.
>> 


0
Dean
5/29/2008 2:02:17 PM
In article <483eb5dc$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones" 
<dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
> I was just trying to bring in the business side of the equation. I have been 
> in many different organizations around the US and overseas. I have seen a 
> lot of very poor developers that have little talent.
> 
> A simple business rule is to define your process so well that you can hire 
> the cheapest labor available to perform the process. This is happening in 
> the IT world. I see fewer and fewer "engineers" every year.
> 
> 
Nice theory (I guess).  But rarely, if ever, have I been presented with 
a process so well defined that it could just be tossed over the fence 
and successfully implemented by some low level "coder".  In many, if not 
most cases, the amount of time and effort required to come up with such 
a highly detailed spec would be roughly equivalent to the time and 
effort required to actually write the code.  And there should be an 
important feedback loop occurring during initial coding phases. 

I don't doubt that there are a lot of poor, untalented developers, or 
that many businesses are willing to forego quality to save a few bucks 
in the short term.  But if this is the market that PB is going after, I 
don't see its future (at least around here) as so bright.
0
Mark
5/29/2008 4:39:15 PM
It's not just a tool issue, it has more to do with project are not given the 
time or the budget to be successful.

You have the same issue with PB, Java and C#.

I don't believe (I'm not Sybase), PB is going after this market. If an 
organization has a team of developers that know PB they can most likely get 
the job done.

It has nothing to do with the tool. I am willing to guess that if I put you 
on a project with any tool (PB, Java or C#) it would be successful.

-- 
Dean Jones
CEO
PowerObjects
http://www.powerobjects.com
(612) 339-3355 Ext. 112

TeamSybase
* * Think Sybase * *


"Mark Maslow" <mark.maslow@sierraclub.org> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22a87c0b92411dfd989689@forums.sybase.com...
> In article <483eb5dc$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones"
> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
>> I was just trying to bring in the business side of the equation. I have 
>> been
>> in many different organizations around the US and overseas. I have seen a
>> lot of very poor developers that have little talent.
>>
>> A simple business rule is to define your process so well that you can 
>> hire
>> the cheapest labor available to perform the process. This is happening in
>> the IT world. I see fewer and fewer "engineers" every year.
>>
>>
> Nice theory (I guess).  But rarely, if ever, have I been presented with
> a process so well defined that it could just be tossed over the fence
> and successfully implemented by some low level "coder".  In many, if not
> most cases, the amount of time and effort required to come up with such
> a highly detailed spec would be roughly equivalent to the time and
> effort required to actually write the code.  And there should be an
> important feedback loop occurring during initial coding phases.
>
> I don't doubt that there are a lot of poor, untalented developers, or
> that many businesses are willing to forego quality to save a few bucks
> in the short term.  But if this is the market that PB is going after, I
> don't see its future (at least around here) as so bright. 


0
Dean
5/29/2008 5:03:19 PM
As pointed by Dean, developers get so firmly entrenched with
technology that they lose sight of business value. Any
modern technology( be it java or .net) should be capable of
augmenting business value. Technologies exist to support
business and not vice versa. Unless there is some kind of
future proofing that these new technologies can increment
business revenues, most companies wouldn't bother rewriting
existing apps and if at all they do, it is just for the sake
of staying current.

In many scenarios I have seen 3-4 java or VB developers do
what a single PB developer achieves in less than half the
time and money. Naturally, these developers are the first to
lose their job during any major layoffs as many of these
apps never make it into production even after spending few
years of development time and effort.

To cite an example, an insurance company where my friend
works have been converting a large PB application to a web
based Java front end(using pure java consultants) and after
spending 3 years have managed to convert only 2 modules in a
total of 7 modules. After all these efforts, the users are
frustrated with the java app as the response time is too
slow and for a large part still use the client server PB app
to get things done fast. They are now in the process of
abandoning the  conversion efforts.

The above example goes to prove that either there is
something wrong with the technology chosen or designers &
developers that are involved in the rewrite are incompetent.
Assuming java to be a perfect technology( atleast according
to mark), then that proves that incompetent developers can
exist in Java as well or any other technology for that
matter. Why single out powerbuilder all the time ?





> In article <483eb5dc$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones"
> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
> > I was just trying to bring in the business side of the
> > equation. I have been  in many different organizations
> > around the US and overseas. I have seen a  lot of very
> > poor developers that have little talent.
> > A simple business rule is to define your process so well
> > that you can hire  the cheapest labor available to
> > perform the process. This is happening in  the IT world.
> > I see fewer and fewer "engineers" every year.
> >
> Nice theory (I guess).  But rarely, if ever, have I been
> presented with  a process so well defined that it could
> just be tossed over the fence  and successfully
> implemented by some low level "coder".  In many, if not
> most cases, the amount of time and effort required to come
> up with such  a highly detailed spec would be roughly
> equivalent to the time and  effort required to actually
> write the code.  And there should be an  important
> feedback loop occurring during initial coding phases.
>
> I don't doubt that there are a lot of poor, untalented
> developers, or  that many businesses are willing to forego
> quality to save a few bucks  in the short term.  But if
> this is the market that PB is going after, I  don't see
> its future (at least around here) as so bright.
0
SNS
5/29/2008 6:08:39 PM
I can tell you why PB is singled out all the time - it (PB) is EXTREMELY 
capable of hiding those "incompetent developers" due to it's 4GL nature...

<SNS> wrote in message news:483ef127.3c5f.1681692777@sybase.com...
> As pointed by Dean, developers get so firmly entrenched with
> technology that they lose sight of business value. Any
> modern technology( be it java or .net) should be capable of
> augmenting business value. Technologies exist to support
> business and not vice versa. Unless there is some kind of
> future proofing that these new technologies can increment
> business revenues, most companies wouldn't bother rewriting
> existing apps and if at all they do, it is just for the sake
> of staying current.
>
> In many scenarios I have seen 3-4 java or VB developers do
> what a single PB developer achieves in less than half the
> time and money. Naturally, these developers are the first to
> lose their job during any major layoffs as many of these
> apps never make it into production even after spending few
> years of development time and effort.
>
> To cite an example, an insurance company where my friend
> works have been converting a large PB application to a web
> based Java front end(using pure java consultants) and after
> spending 3 years have managed to convert only 2 modules in a
> total of 7 modules. After all these efforts, the users are
> frustrated with the java app as the response time is too
> slow and for a large part still use the client server PB app
> to get things done fast. They are now in the process of
> abandoning the  conversion efforts.
>
> The above example goes to prove that either there is
> something wrong with the technology chosen or designers &
> developers that are involved in the rewrite are incompetent.
> Assuming java to be a perfect technology( atleast according
> to mark), then that proves that incompetent developers can
> exist in Java as well or any other technology for that
> matter. Why single out powerbuilder all the time ?
>
>
>
>
>
>> In article <483eb5dc$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones"
>> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
>> > I was just trying to bring in the business side of the
>> > equation. I have been  in many different organizations
>> > around the US and overseas. I have seen a  lot of very
>> > poor developers that have little talent.
>> > A simple business rule is to define your process so well
>> > that you can hire  the cheapest labor available to
>> > perform the process. This is happening in  the IT world.
>> > I see fewer and fewer "engineers" every year.
>> >
>> Nice theory (I guess).  But rarely, if ever, have I been
>> presented with  a process so well defined that it could
>> just be tossed over the fence  and successfully
>> implemented by some low level "coder".  In many, if not
>> most cases, the amount of time and effort required to come
>> up with such  a highly detailed spec would be roughly
>> equivalent to the time and  effort required to actually
>> write the code.  And there should be an  important
>> feedback loop occurring during initial coding phases.
>>
>> I don't doubt that there are a lot of poor, untalented
>> developers, or  that many businesses are willing to forego
>> quality to save a few bucks  in the short term.  But if
>> this is the market that PB is going after, I  don't see
>> its future (at least around here) as so bright. 


0
Philip
5/29/2008 6:17:16 PM
> The above example goes to prove that either there is
> something wrong with the technology chosen or designers &
> developers that are involved in the rewrite are incompetent.
> Assuming java to be a perfect technology( atleast according
> to mark), then that proves that incompetent developers can
> exist in Java as well or any other technology for that
> matter. Why single out powerbuilder all the time ?
> 

Please point out where I said, or even vaguely implied, that Java (or 
anything else) is a "perfect technology".

I was just trying to say that, to dismiss any technology out of hand 
because there is learning curve involved to come up to speed is, IMHO, 
very short-sighted.  What I try to do is come up with the most 
appropriate technology stack for meeting a particular need.  The primary 
problem I have with PB is that it doesn't seem to me to play very well 
with others.  The difficulty involved in putting a layer of true 
business objects between the user interface and database layers is the 
most glaring example.  In a web app, where there are multiple physical 
and logical tiers and scopes (request, session, conversation) and 
transient state has to be explicity stored and retrieved, being able to 
decouple from the DB can greatly simplify things and make the apps much 
more performant.

As I've said before, PB is reasonably good at traditional C/S apps, and 
those kinds of apps may well be the most appropriate for some 
situations.  I'm all in favor of Sybase pointing out the advantages of 
C/S apps, and pushing PB for building them.  But there needs to be a 
clear recognition of its limitations, or a lot of other customers will 
be left, as we have been, painted into a corner and having to replicate 
functionality in multiple code bases.
0
Mark
5/29/2008 7:32:44 PM
I have seen the same failures. Again its not nessarily the tool. It's not 
easy to rewrite an application.

-- 
Dean Jones
CEO
PowerObjects
http://www.powerobjects.com
(612) 339-3355 Ext. 112

TeamSybase
* * Think Sybase * *


<SNS> wrote in message news:483ef127.3c5f.1681692777@sybase.com...
> As pointed by Dean, developers get so firmly entrenched with
> technology that they lose sight of business value. Any
> modern technology( be it java or .net) should be capable of
> augmenting business value. Technologies exist to support
> business and not vice versa. Unless there is some kind of
> future proofing that these new technologies can increment
> business revenues, most companies wouldn't bother rewriting
> existing apps and if at all they do, it is just for the sake
> of staying current.
>
> In many scenarios I have seen 3-4 java or VB developers do
> what a single PB developer achieves in less than half the
> time and money. Naturally, these developers are the first to
> lose their job during any major layoffs as many of these
> apps never make it into production even after spending few
> years of development time and effort.
>
> To cite an example, an insurance company where my friend
> works have been converting a large PB application to a web
> based Java front end(using pure java consultants) and after
> spending 3 years have managed to convert only 2 modules in a
> total of 7 modules. After all these efforts, the users are
> frustrated with the java app as the response time is too
> slow and for a large part still use the client server PB app
> to get things done fast. They are now in the process of
> abandoning the  conversion efforts.
>
> The above example goes to prove that either there is
> something wrong with the technology chosen or designers &
> developers that are involved in the rewrite are incompetent.
> Assuming java to be a perfect technology( atleast according
> to mark), then that proves that incompetent developers can
> exist in Java as well or any other technology for that
> matter. Why single out powerbuilder all the time ?
>
>
>
>
>
>> In article <483eb5dc$1@forums-1-dub>, "Dean Jones"
>> <dean_dot_jones_at_powerobjects_dot_com> says...
>> > I was just trying to bring in the business side of the
>> > equation. I have been  in many different organizations
>> > around the US and overseas. I have seen a  lot of very
>> > poor developers that have little talent.
>> > A simple business rule is to define your process so well
>> > that you can hire  the cheapest labor available to
>> > perform the process. This is happening in  the IT world.
>> > I see fewer and fewer "engineers" every year.
>> >
>> Nice theory (I guess).  But rarely, if ever, have I been
>> presented with  a process so well defined that it could
>> just be tossed over the fence  and successfully
>> implemented by some low level "coder".  In many, if not
>> most cases, the amount of time and effort required to come
>> up with such  a highly detailed spec would be roughly
>> equivalent to the time and  effort required to actually
>> write the code.  And there should be an  important
>> feedback loop occurring during initial coding phases.
>>
>> I don't doubt that there are a lot of poor, untalented
>> developers, or  that many businesses are willing to forego
>> quality to save a few bucks  in the short term.  But if
>> this is the market that PB is going after, I  don't see
>> its future (at least around here) as so bright. 


0
Dean
5/30/2008 1:42:09 PM
"Mark Maslow" <mark.maslow@sierraclub.org> wrote in message 
news:MPG.22a8a4b62a4faf2998968a@forums.sybase.com...
<snip>

> As I've said before, PB is reasonably good at traditional C/S apps,

Reasonably good?  I'd go so far as to consider it "best in show" in that 
regard...

> and
> those kinds of apps may well be the most appropriate for some
> situations.  I'm all in favor of Sybase pointing out the advantages of
> C/S apps, and pushing PB for building them.  But there needs to be a
> clear recognition of its limitations, or a lot of other customers will
> be left, as we have been, painted into a corner and having to replicate
> functionality in multiple code bases.

"a lot of other customers"??   How many PB shops, (and I don't know, I'm 
just asking), are developing solutions against multiple backends where an 
extra layer of abstraction would really improve the overall design?  Unless 
you're an ISV and developing a commercial app, I'd guess not many (?).

I know that your biggest single complaint about PB is its lack of support 
for object-relational abstraction layers, and that certainly is true.  I 
just don't know if that equates to "a lot of other customers".

Paul Horan[TeamSybase] 


0
Paul
5/30/2008 1:50:47 PM
"Paul Horan[TeamSybase]" <phoran AT sybase DOT com> wrote in message 
news:48400637$1@forums-1-dub...
> "Mark Maslow" <mark.maslow@sierraclub.org> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.22a8a4b62a4faf2998968a@forums.sybase.com...

>> and
>> those kinds of apps may well be the most appropriate for some
>> situations.  I'm all in favor of Sybase pointing out the advantages of
>> C/S apps, and pushing PB for building them.  But there needs to be a
>> clear recognition of its limitations, or a lot of other customers will
>> be left, as we have been, painted into a corner and having to replicate
>> functionality in multiple code bases.
>
> "a lot of other customers"??   How many PB shops, (and I don't know, I'm 
> just asking), are developing solutions against multiple backends where an 
> extra layer of abstraction would really improve the overall design? 
> Unless you're an ISV and developing a commercial app, I'd guess not many 
> (?).

I work on a commercial  product which is in production for many years 
working against multiple backends. Single code base (you just have to know 
how to do it I guess :-)  ), no problems whatsoever in that regard. And this 
isn't the first one like that I worked on... 


0
Philip
5/30/2008 2:46:12 PM
> I work on a commercial  product which is in production for many years 
> working against multiple backends. Single code base (you just have to know 
> how to do it I guess :-)  ), no problems whatsoever in that regard. And 
> this isn't the first one like that I worked on...

Not talking about muliple backends - as in databases.  All our major systems 
use ASE.  I'm talking about the ability to use the same business objects 
across various applications that use different frameworks.  In my "perfect" 
world, I would be able to build business objects in Java or .NET and use 
them both in my Java or .NET web applications, and as sources for 
datawindows in my PB C/S applications.

Silly pipe dream - I know.


0
Mark
5/30/2008 3:22:12 PM
 But your posts so far seem to indicate that Java is
probably the closest one could get to in search for an
an Ideal technology. Now, I ask you this question. What is
it that you dislike about Java ?

> > The above example goes to prove that either there is
> > something wrong with the technology chosen or designers
> > & developers that are involved in the rewrite are
> > incompetent. Assuming java to be a perfect technology(
> > atleast according to mark), then that proves that
> > incompetent developers can exist in Java as well or any
> > other technology for that matter. Why single out
> > powerbuilder all the time ?
>
> Please point out where I said, or even vaguely implied,
> that Java (or  anything else) is a "perfect technology".
>
> I was just trying to say that, to dismiss any technology
> out of hand  because there is learning curve involved to
> come up to speed is, IMHO,  very short-sighted.  What I
> try to do is come up with the most  appropriate technology
> stack for meeting a particular need.  The primary  problem
> I have with PB is that it doesn't seem to me to play very
> well  with others.  The difficulty involved in putting a
> layer of true  business objects between the user interface
> and database layers is the  most glaring example.  In a
> web app, where there are multiple physical  and logical
> tiers and scopes (request, session, conversation) and
> transient state has to be explicity stored and retrieved,
> being able to  decouple from the DB can greatly simplify
> things and make the apps much  more performant.
>
> As I've said before, PB is reasonably good at traditional
> C/S apps, and  those kinds of apps may well be the most
> appropriate for some  situations.  I'm all in favor of
> Sybase pointing out the advantages of  C/S apps, and
> pushing PB for building them.  But there needs to be a
> clear recognition of its limitations, or a lot of other
> customers will  be left, as we have been, painted into a
> corner and having to replicate  functionality in multiple
> code bases.
0
SNS
5/30/2008 6:12:47 PM
<SNS> wrote in message news:4840439f.6778.1681692777@sybase.com...
> But your posts so far seem to indicate that Java is
> probably the closest one could get to in search for an
> an Ideal technology. Now, I ask you this question. What is
> it that you dislike about Java ?
>

One of the biggest strengths of Java is also one of its weaknesses.  A Java 
developer has a huge array of choices.  Web frameworks, persistence 
frameworks, UI frameworks, containers to provide services, various libraries 
and utilities, etc., etc.  Choice is good.  A tool that is a good choice for 
one situation may be a poor choice for another.  But choice can also be 
overwhelming.  There are lots and lots of open source tools and frameworks, 
some of which are really good.  But documentation is often sparse, which can 
mean you sometimes have to spend time figuring something out for yourself 
when things don't work as expected.

As far as I can tell, Java and .NET are more similar than different.  The 
most popular OS tools in the Java world have made it into the .NET world as 
well, and some of the ease-of-use features in the .NET world have been 
inspiring people in the Java world to come up with better tools as well. 
Neither is yet what I would describe as "ideal", but both can generally get 
the job done pretty well. 


0
Mark
5/30/2008 6:57:33 PM
"Paul Horan[TeamSybase]" <phoran AT sybase DOT com> wrote in message 
news:48400637$1@forums-1-dub...
>  How many PB shops, (and I don't know, I'm just asking), are developing 
> solutions against multiple backends where an extra layer of abstraction 
> would really improve the overall design?  Unless you're an ISV and 
> developing a commercial app, I'd guess not many (?).
>
> I know that your biggest single complaint about PB is its lack of support 
> for object-relational abstraction layers, and that certainly is true.  I 
> just don't know if that equates to "a lot of other customers".
>

It seems you completely miss the point.  I happen to believe that 
"Object/Relational Impedence Mismatch" is a real thing and that having a 
tool to help make the translation for you, and then building your UI around 
a network of objects, rather than an RDB, is a good way to go, especially in 
any kind of distributed environment where you may want to put pieces of that 
object network in different scopes or off in a cache somewhere and hook them 
up with configuration and various kinds of state information.  At that 
point, doing any kind of UI imaginable becomes dead simple.  The UI doesn't 
have to do anything but be a window onto your object graph.  You are free to 
use any UI tool that can exchange messages with your objects.  There are 
many - but PB is not one of them.

I actually find it kind of liberating, in a way, to be able to go beyond the 
kind of 2-dimensional thinking required to navigate an RDB.  The fact that 
so many tools have emerged in both the Java and .NET worlds in the last 
several years to help make that translation would seem to me to indicate 
that there are a lot of others that also see the value.  But apparently you 
and many others on this forum don't.  To each his own ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-Relational_impedance_mismatch



0
Mark
5/30/2008 10:45:21 PM
I'm not sure that's a fair thing to ask.  All design that has reuse 
involves some sort of standardization.  For example, in order to have 
complete compatibility for electrical devices, the plug size and shape 
have to be standard.

Now, in countries where the power is different than the US (which is 
pretty much everywhere else, I know) simple devices don't work.  More 
complex devices, like variable input power supplies, work fine.  But 
those devices were designed to be multi-compatible.

The same problems exist in the coding world.  In order to get 
reusability, we have to define standards within our organizations. 
Frameworks qualify as one of those standards.  If we want our components 
to work with several non-standard back ends, we have to design smart 
components that adjust - just like the power supplies.

I've found that companies keep picking new frameworks and standards for 
each project.  That makes some sense - always use the latest - but it 
still guarantees our systems don't work with each other.

Just my $0.02.


Jonathan

Mark Maslow wrote:
>> I work on a commercial  product which is in production for many years 
>> working against multiple backends. Single code base (you just have to know 
>> how to do it I guess :-)  ), no problems whatsoever in that regard. And 
>> this isn't the first one like that I worked on...
> 
> Not talking about muliple backends - as in databases.  All our major systems 
> use ASE.  I'm talking about the ability to use the same business objects 
> across various applications that use different frameworks.  In my "perfect" 
> world, I would be able to build business objects in Java or .NET and use 
> them both in my Java or .NET web applications, and as sources for 
> datawindows in my PB C/S applications.
> 
> Silly pipe dream - I know.
> 
> 
0
Jonathan
6/1/2008 3:18:38 PM
That argument also has a flip side.  The wealth of choices in the Java 
world has created a Darwinian approach to good design and usability. 
Frameworks like Struts, with it's inherent flaws, were rapidly replaced 
by new frameworks that solved a number of issues.  Admittedly, this 
evolution is fast paced, which means that developers are being forced to 
keep up with a constantly changing market.  At the same time, that level 
of change is good - because it gets new and better ideas in to the hands 
of developers rapidly.  The trade offs work themselves out.

I also think "more similar" is an understatement.  Despite all of the 
"anti Java" sentiment pushed around by MS, the frameworks and tools have 
grown to be remarkably similar.  It seems the same problems invite the 
same solutions, no matter what "side" you are on.



Jonathan



Mark Maslow wrote:
> <SNS> wrote in message news:4840439f.6778.1681692777@sybase.com...
>> But your posts so far seem to indicate that Java is
>> probably the closest one could get to in search for an
>> an Ideal technology. Now, I ask you this question. What is
>> it that you dislike about Java ?
>>
> 
> One of the biggest strengths of Java is also one of its weaknesses.  A Java 
> developer has a huge array of choices.  Web frameworks, persistence 
> frameworks, UI frameworks, containers to provide services, various libraries 
> and utilities, etc., etc.  Choice is good.  A tool that is a good choice for 
> one situation may be a poor choice for another.  But choice can also be 
> overwhelming.  There are lots and lots of open source tools and frameworks, 
> some of which are really good.  But documentation is often sparse, which can 
> mean you sometimes have to spend time figuring something out for yourself 
> when things don't work as expected.
> 
> As far as I can tell, Java and .NET are more similar than different.  The 
> most popular OS tools in the Java world have made it into the .NET world as 
> well, and some of the ease-of-use features in the .NET world have been 
> inspiring people in the Java world to come up with better tools as well. 
> Neither is yet what I would describe as "ideal", but both can generally get 
> the job done pretty well. 
> 
> 
0
Jonathan
6/1/2008 3:36:35 PM
But I thought PB was heading towards a standard - .NET.  If PB is heading 
towards being a .NET tool, it doesn't seem to me so unfair to ask to be able 
to at least use .NET objects as sources for PB DWs.

Yes, it is true that frameworks come and go at a rapid pace.  But it is very 
often possible to re-use business objects across frameworks - which is what 
I was talking about.  I can reuse the business objects and data access layer 
I created several years ago for a Struts app in an app I build today with 
JSF or Spring MVC, neither of which existed when the Struts app was built.


"Jonathan Baker [Sybase]" <lastnamefirstinitial@sybase.com> wrote in message 
news:4842BDD5.1030104@sybase.com...
> I'm not sure that's a fair thing to ask.  All design that has reuse 
> involves some sort of standardization.  For example, in order to have 
> complete compatibility for electrical devices, the plug size and shape 
> have to be standard.
>
> Now, in countries where the power is different than the US (which is 
> pretty much everywhere else, I know) simple devices don't work.  More 
> complex devices, like variable input power supplies, work fine.  But those 
> devices were designed to be multi-compatible.
>
> The same problems exist in the coding world.  In order to get reusability, 
> we have to define standards within our organizations. Frameworks qualify 
> as one of those standards.  If we want our components to work with several 
> non-standard back ends, we have to design smart components that adjust - 
> just like the power supplies.
>
> I've found that companies keep picking new frameworks and standards for 
> each project.  That makes some sense - always use the latest - but it 
> still guarantees our systems don't work with each other.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> Mark Maslow wrote:
>>> I work on a commercial  product which is in production for many years 
>>> working against multiple backends. Single code base (you just have to 
>>> know how to do it I guess :-)  ), no problems whatsoever in that regard. 
>>> And this isn't the first one like that I worked on...
>>
>> Not talking about muliple backends - as in databases.  All our major 
>> systems use ASE.  I'm talking about the ability to use the same business 
>> objects across various applications that use different frameworks.  In my 
>> "perfect" world, I would be able to build business objects in Java or 
>> .NET and use them both in my Java or .NET web applications, and as 
>> sources for datawindows in my PB C/S applications.
>>
>> Silly pipe dream - I know.
>> 

0
Mark
6/1/2008 5:28:51 PM
Paul Horan[TeamSybase] wrote:

> "a lot of other customers"??   How many PB shops, (and I don't know,
> I'm just asking), are developing solutions against multiple backends
> where an extra layer of abstraction would really improve the overall
> design?  Unless you're an ISV and developing a commercial app, I'd
> guess not many (?).

I think that you're going the wrong way. We don't develop solutions
against multiple back ends. We develop multiple solutions against a
single back end. For example, at my last job, I wrote a COM server in
Delphi as a front end to our trading database. It had the following
front ends.

Excel (for simple deals)
A Delphi client (for complex deals)
A Delphi Daemon (for online trades)
A VB.Net Daemon (so another system could interface with ours)

At my current job, I've got a couple of other libraries that support
multiple applications, where the library sits between the app and the
database. (One supports 4, the other 12+) In one, data from the
database is mixed freely with data generated by the application. In the
other, data is stored using an Entity-Attribute-Value model, so
straight selects would be incredibly painful, and the library insulates
the app writers from the database.
-- 
..Sigless
0
Mike
6/1/2008 6:34:40 PM
I will go back to an example I had before regarding populating a DW from a 
collection of objects.

I have integrated Data-Tech's FaxMan software into a product.  The .Net 
implementation of this contorl returns a Collection of FaxObjects.  IE list 
of all the fax jobs in the completed Buffer ... Faxman returns a Collection 
of FaxObjects - a fax object has information such as FaxId, Status, 
FaxNumber, Company, Sender, ....  Now, for this project I built a service 
using VB.Net to do handle all my faxing.  Now, this was not hard to do in VB 
..Net (about 6 hours).  Their were two reasons I did not choose PB for this 
....

1. I would have to write a wrapper to populate a visual control (DW) with a 
collection of fax objects - I built a visual part to the service for viewing 
the fax logs.

2. Deploying PB applications as a windows service.  This is dead simple in 
VB.Net.  It probably is simple with PB too, but by the time I researched it, 
I would have (and did) built VB Service.

Now, if the DataWindow could have been easily populated with a Collection of 
Fax Objects, I would have invested the time required to get a PB application 
to run as a service.  However, due to this object based dataset limitation, 
I choose not to use PB.

So, I agree with Mark on this one... the datawindow MUST be able to bind to 
various data sources -> not just a Table in a database <-  A collection of 
objects comes to mind -> To me this will be manditory as other third party 
controls and projects start dropping their com and activeX controls in 
favour of a pure .net solution. This limitation will greatly limit the PB 
developer from using third party controls - unless they want to build a 
wrapper for each object collection.

Jeff.





"Mark Maslow" <mark.maslow@sierraclub.org> wrote in message 
news:4842dc53$1@forums-1-dub...
> But I thought PB was heading towards a standard - .NET.  If PB is heading 
> towards being a .NET tool, it doesn't seem to me so unfair to ask to be 
> able to at least use .NET objects as sources for PB DWs.
>
> Yes, it is true that frameworks come and go at a rapid pace.  But it is 
> very often possible to re-use business objects across frameworks - which 
> is what I was talking about.  I can reuse the business objects and data 
> access layer I created several years ago for a Struts app in an app I 
> build today with JSF or Spring MVC, neither of which existed when the 
> Struts app was built.
>
>
> "Jonathan Baker [Sybase]" <lastnamefirstinitial@sybase.com> wrote in 
> message news:4842BDD5.1030104@sybase.com...
>> I'm not sure that's a fair thing to ask.  All design that has reuse 
>> involves some sort of standardization.  For example, in order to have 
>> complete compatibility for electrical devices, the plug size and shape 
>> have to be standard.
>>
>> Now, in countries where the power is different than the US (which is 
>> pretty much everywhere else, I know) simple devices don't work.  More 
>> complex devices, like variable input power supplies, work fine.  But 
>> those devices were designed to be multi-compatible.
>>
>> The same problems exist in the coding world.  In order to get 
>> reusability, we have to define standards within our organizations. 
>> Frameworks qualify as one of those standards.  If we want our components 
>> to work with several non-standard back ends, we have to design smart 
>> components that adjust - just like the power supplies.
>>
>> I've found that companies keep picking new frameworks and standards for 
>> each project.  That makes some sense - always use the latest - but it 
>> still guarantees our systems don't work with each other.
>>
>> Just my $0.02.
>>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Mark Maslow wrote:
>>>> I work on a commercial  product which is in production for many years 
>>>> working against multiple backends. Single code base (you just have to 
>>>> know how to do it I guess :-)  ), no problems whatsoever in that 
>>>> regard. And this isn't the first one like that I worked on...
>>>
>>> Not talking about muliple backends - as in databases.  All our major 
>>> systems use ASE.  I'm talking about the ability to use the same business 
>>> objects across various applications that use different frameworks.  In 
>>> my "perfect" world, I would be able to build business objects in Java or 
>>> .NET and use them both in my Java or .NET web applications, and as 
>>> sources for datawindows in my PB C/S applications.
>>>
>>> Silly pipe dream - I know.
>>>
> 


0
jeff
6/1/2008 11:27:55 PM
"Mike Swaim" <mpswaim@mdanderson.org> wrote in message 
news:4842ebc0$1@forums-1-dub...
> Paul Horan[TeamSybase] wrote:
>
>> "a lot of other customers"??   How many PB shops, (and I don't know,
>> I'm just asking), are developing solutions against multiple backends
>> where an extra layer of abstraction would really improve the overall
>> design?  Unless you're an ISV and developing a commercial app, I'd
>> guess not many (?).
>
> I think that you're going the wrong way. We don't develop solutions
> against multiple back ends. We develop multiple solutions against a
> single back end. For example, at my last job, I wrote a COM server in
> Delphi as a front end to our trading database. It had the following
> front ends.

We had 26 (or was it 27) separate PB executables written against our single 
ASA9 backend.

We also supported "adhoc" report writing, so the actual number of 
"applications" could be significantly higher.

>
> Excel (for simple deals)
> A Delphi client (for complex deals)
> A Delphi Daemon (for online trades)
> A VB.Net Daemon (so another system could interface with ours)
>
> At my current job, I've got a couple of other libraries that support
> multiple applications, where the library sits between the app and the
> database. (One supports 4, the other 12+) In one, data from the
> database is mixed freely with data generated by the application. In the
> other, data is stored using an Entity-Attribute-Value model, so
> straight selects would be incredibly painful, and the library insulates
> the app writers from the database.

Why do they need to be insulated?  Do they not understand SQL?  It's really 
not all that difficult...

> -- 
> .Sigless 


0
Paul
6/2/2008 12:36:09 PM
Paul Horan[TeamSybase] wrote:

> "Mike Swaim" <mpswaim@mdanderson.org> wrote in message
> news:4842ebc0$1@forums-1-dub...

> > At my current job, I've got a couple of other libraries that support
> > multiple applications, where the library sits between the app and
> > the database. (One supports 4, the other 12+) In one, data from the
> > database is mixed freely with data generated by the application. In
> > the other, data is stored using an Entity-Attribute-Value model, so
> > straight selects would be incredibly painful, and the library
> > insulates the app writers from the database.
> 
> Why do they need to be insulated?  Do they not understand SQL?  It's
> really not all that difficult...

  We're using an EAV data model, so each you'd have to add two tables
to your select for every "column" in your query. That gets unwieldy
fast, but then so do 600+ column tables, or 100+ tables for just the
data. This way the app just asks the framework for data on a particular
form for a patient at a particular stage of treatment, and it returns
bindable data.
  The framework also does stuff like storing attributes (columns) in
consistent units, so if patient weight is defined in pounds, and the
user enters the weight in kilograms, it gets automatically converted to
pounds when it hits the database, and converted back when the client
app asks for it. It also handles partial dates, like 7/2000, and
special statuses like "Not Done" or "Not Applicable" for numbers.


Mike S.
0
Mike
6/2/2008 7:56:56 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

What's compatible with DW.NET 2.0 and DW.NET 2.5?
The group I work with does nothing but PB applications. Finally there is some interest in moving some of our applications away from PB towards the .Net area. Currently we are not interested in what PB 11 is offering in the .NET area. We would like to be in a more 'native' .NET environment. Now with that being said , we are in the VERY early stages of using Visual Studio and Datawindow.NET. We have already found some issues with DW.NET 2.5 and VS 2008 that are making it difficult to move forward. So here is my question. What versions of VS and DW.NET actually work well tog...

Height of Rows in Web DW's (DW.NET 2.0)
How does dw.net calculate the height of a div for a web dw? I have a dw which has one autosized height column. This column can contain thousands of words. DW.net is adjusting the height of the column properly but is leaving a very large empty gap between rows (we're sometimes talking about 500 pixels here). The gap is not constant - the more text the column contains (thus greater the height) the greater the gap. ...

Clickonce deployment anyone (DW.NET 2.0 and .NET 2.0)?
I saw someone had posted a question about this already, and there were no responses. So I am hoping that this will get some. We had problems with the previous version of DW.NET 1.5 + VS2003 when attempting to deploy applications via a web server. So many problems that we eventually decided to run off a network drive (which is OK if your user base doesn't roam around the country). Anyway, we gave up on DW.NET, and started to use the datagrid control. Since then, much has changed. Our development team now has VS2005 professional and may start using DW.NET 2.0 (pending my inv...

Does DW.Net 2.5 work with .Net 3.0?
Thanks It will work with .NET 3.0 but it uses .NET 2.0 classes. Regards, Dave Fish Sybase On 12 Sep 2007 10:39:02 -0700, "luiz silva" <luiz.silva@turner.com> wrote: >Thanks > ...

Differences between .net 1, .net 1.1, .net 2.0 and .net 3.0 #2
Hi, This seems to be a common question, but i havent got an answer yet:(Can, any one please explain me the differences between these versions.If you keep your feet firmly on the ground, you'll have trouble putting on your pants! There are too many differences for one email - - from 1.0 to 1.1 (not a whole lot of real change, other than fixes, at least compared to 1.1 to 2.0) With 2.0, there were many new declarative controls, with many new ideas added in With 3.0, it's a superset of 2.0 - instead of replacing the installation completely, it just 'added on' new functionality - I would...

Can I Execute An ASP.NET 1.1 Application's ASPX Page By Using Server.Execute From An ASP.NET 2.0 Application's ASPX Page
Hi All,Can someone help on this?I have 2 ASP.NET applications, 1 built in 1.1 and the other on 2.0In 1 of the aspx pages in my ASP.NET 2.0 application, I do Server.Execute and call another aspx page which is part of the ASP.NET 1.1 application. On doing this, I get this error: Invalid path for child request. A virtual path is expected.Is there any solution for this except for using Response.Redirect (WHICH I CANT USE). If not then can someone suggest a wayout for this:Whenever a new user signs up in my ASP.NET 2.0 application, I need to create a new user in my ASP.NET 1.1...

ASP.NET 2.0 AND .NET 2.0
I have a web app that I built using VS.net 2003 and ASP.net 1.1 I would like to start developing my app with ASP.net 2.0. What do I need to do to convert it and will VS.net 2003 support ASP.net 2.0 and .Net 2.0? Thank you for any information on this,Thank youJackxxx Hello. I think that you want have many problems converting from 1.1 to 2.0. Take a look here:http://www.msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/whidbey/beta2update.aspx I think that besides changing the aspx directive, everythin should work ok (tough i still haven't migrated any web site to version 2 of the platform). Regarding VS 2003...

tree DW coming in DW.NET 2.0?
Hi Not sure if this has been asked, but is a tree view control coming with DW ..NET 2.0? Thanks JC Yes, the TreeView DataWindow will be part of the next release. WinForms will be introduced first, followed by webforms in a subsequent release. On 26 Jul 2005 18:05:38 -0700, "JC" <dwnoob@hotmail.com> wrote: >Hi > >Not sure if this has been asked, but is a tree view control coming with DW >.NET 2.0? > >Thanks > >JC > ...

[ASP.Net 2.0]
I'm starting to chage a site to ASP.Net 2.0.  I have a couple of 1.1 DataGrids that I wasn't planning to change over for a while while I learned the new controls.ASP.Net 2.0 doesn't display the (cell) borders of the version 1.1 DataGrids.Is there away to get the borders to display?Thanks,Tinker  T. R. Tinker: ASP.Net 2.0 doesn't display the (cell) borders of the version 1.1 DataGrids. do u mean the designer doesnt display it  or its not displayed in the browser ? i think the New Designer doesnt display the styles and maybe its not displayed until...

Support for dw.NET 2.5 in VS 2008, .NET framework 3.5 and Oracle 10.2g
Hi, I intend to use the datawindow.NET 2.5 in VS 2008 (.NET framework 3.5) using a Oracle 10.2g database as a backend and later using Oracle 11g as backend. Can someone please let me know if the product is supported in the environments mentioned. All help will be highly appreciated and many thanks in advance. Regards Hasan Kasamali On Nov 24, 3:06=A0am, Hasan Kasamali wrote: > Hi, > > I intend to use the datawindow.NET 2.5 in VS 2008 (.NET > framework 3.5) using a Oracle 10.2g database as a backend > and later using Oracle 11g as backend. > > Can ...

Vb.net code in asp.net 2.0: works on hosts win 2003asp.net 2.0 server, crashes on xp asp.net offline workstation
Hi All  Can anyone tell me whats wrong with this code ?  Dim WeeklyRentalMinT as double = txtminrent.text  I 've been using code similar or identical to that since I started experimenting with ASP 3.0 in 2004 its worked every time, yet I now wonder if it contributed to slowing down my apps, we'll the code works on my host server, it worked on my pc when it was running asp.net 1.1, but now that i've upgraaded to asp.net 2.0, i get an error "[FormatException: Input string was not in a correct format.]"  How would you read input from a form tex...

Is DataWindow 2.5 in Dw.Net is same as DataWindow in PB11.2
Hi there , Can anybody confirm the said subject is a valid statement ? Dw.Net2.5 = PB11.2.DataWindow ???? How about the future enhancements which are planned for PB11.5 and future releases of PB... Will it not always be in the same codestreamline ? Regards , Van I mean how will be co-relate the three products from Sybase 1) DataWindow.Net 2.5 for Visual Studio 2008 2) PocketPowerBuilder Datawindows 3) PowerBuilder11.2 and Powerbuilder1x.x Datawindows All everthing is remain the same in all the above three products as far as Datawindow properties / events /...

Problem after host moved my site from ASP.NET 2.0 Beta 2 to an ASP.NET 2.0 server
Hi there,I wonder if you can help.My site has been moved today to a different server an ASP.NET 2.0 host, from one that was a ASP.NET 2.0 Beta 2 host.I can access some of the pages but I can't login. I get Application Error.Also get the same if I try to access the Events page.I'm using SQL Server 2000. I can still access the database through SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Manager.Also I can run the website perfectly when running it from Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2 locally, can see all the members again and Events section works fine.Anyone got any clues to help me to get my club site...

DW.Net 2.0, TreeView expansion in VB.Net 2005
Hello, I created a TreeView datawindow in DW.Net 2.0 Designer. It contains 3 expansion levels. The inner level expands correctly in the designer, displaying multiple lines as appropriate. In Visual Studio 2005, under VB.Net, all levels look correct, except that the innermost level will not display more than one line. Anyone have an idea what is needed under VB.Net to permit all detail lines to display? Thanks for your help. Joel H. Replying to my own message: This problem appears to have been caused by incorrect filters. An extra filter was created in a l...