Re: Oracle Forms vs Visual Studio .Net

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:58:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1074646616.183187@yasure>

Comments in-line.

Jeff wrote:

> In article <1074267648.488805_at_yasure>, Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>

>>1. Everybody is leaning .NET. When pretty much everyone knows something 
>>competition for jobs becomes more difficult and the salary goes down. 
>>There is just more money is being a Fprms expert.

>
> Basically, number #1 on your list, says go with something that's less
> prevalent and perhaps harder to use just to keep your salary high, nevermind
> what's good for the shop. That's a piss poor reason to choose one over the
> other, IMHO.

I agree. But anytime you want to have a head-to-head competition for ROI with me using Forms and you using .NET to build an application I will gladly put my reputation on the line.

I'll likely be Beta testing while your still trying to create a stable connection.

>>2. Jeff states that Forms 9i requires the 9iAS app server which is a 
>>pain to install and configure: He is incorrect. OC4J is required not the 
>>app server and installing and configuring 0C4J is not that difficult. 

>
> That's funny because Oracle hasn't offered any options for 9i Forms deployment
> (that I've seen anyway) other than through 9iAS. Kindly point us towards some
> Oracle-supported solutions for 9i Forms deployment that don't require the iAS.

Here is one of many links:
http://dbforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=534153

I wouldn't expect Oracle sales people to make a big deal out if simply because it isn't in their best interest.

>>Also, he is looking to the past and assuming that because 9iAS is 
>>difficult therefore it is the way it will always be. This too is untrue. 

>
> Always? No. I can only speak to what I've yet seen or heard. I can't make a
> recommendation based on future products or products I've heard nothing about.
> Who can? The OP asked about Forms vs. .NET, which is what my post was about.
> If 10g is available now and the next great thing in database apps, then that's
> news to me.

The 10g database is not available. But many other 10g apps are available. If not in final release form ... as "previews".

>> The new Oracle Application Server 10g is as simple as 9iAS is 

>
> If this is true, that's refreshing to hear. What have they changed in 10gAS
> that has so greatly simplified the bloated, expensive, nightmare that was
> 9iAS?

Greatly improved installation that prompts for the configuration information. The nightmare seems to be over.

Now I can't guarantee what I've seen is what will be released ... but I'd take what I've seen over 9iAS anytime of any day.

>>challenging. He also talks about Forms 6i which is meaningless. The 
>>curent version is 9i and the 10g version will be here long before you 
>>could have anything ready to deploy.

>
> Forms 6i is meaningless now that it's about to be desupported, but it wasn't
> impertanent to my response. The OP didn't seem interested in Web apps (I
> could be wrong), and for many shops this is true as well. 6i was the last
> Forms that supported the simple client-server model... unless Oracle's
> reintroduced it in a new version that I'm not aware of.

Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me or both. I have long said Oracle made a huge mistake dropping client-server capabilities from Forms. Basically they ceded the market for client server to Microsoft. And there are a lot of Oracle shops that can save money and get what they need without deploying the latest alphabet soup.

I am so sick of JAVA, JSP, XML, DIME, MIME, blah blah blah blah blah when I am working with a small shop that just needs to insert records and query a local database. Not everyone is Boeing or AT&T. Not everyone has an IS department. And Oracle is just walking away and leaving their business on the table.

> For some, Oracle's move to web-only deployment is a slap in the face. I'm not
> keen on non-web apps that only run in a browser... nor am I particularly fond
> of Java apps that just seem to me to be unstable, fat and slow (I've yet to
> meet the Java app that wasn't). If I needed to deploy apps to customers that
> aren't in-house, web-deployement would make sense (actually, .NET does this
> too, but it's optional), but for in-house apps, web apps pale in comparison in
> stability and robustness. Of course, that's just my opinion.

One that I agree with. I like Java ... for some things. But I don't like Java for ... everything. Fanatics rarely make good decisions. And it seems that somewhere in Oracle there are a bunch of Java fanatics.

>>3. If you learn Forms 6i, or 9i, the learning curve to 10g will be 
>>extremely small.

>
> If you intend to go with 10g, this could be relevant, but one could say the
> same thing about almost any other IDE evolution.

True.

>>4. Far superior security to .NET

>
> I agree.
>

>>5. Far tighter integration than .NET

>
> I said this as well... or tried to.
>

>>6. Far more sensible approach if using the database for anything other 
>>than columns and rows.

>
> Define this, please.

Getting past VARCHAR, NUMBER, and DATE and into TIMESTAMP, INTERVAL, user defined data types, etc. Maybe I missed something but I don't recall see a lot of Oracle's newer functionality supported by .NET.

>>7. Platform independence

>
> Possibly, but realities are that for some shops (particularly smaller shops),
> this isn't relevant, because the vast majority (99.9%) of their clients use M$
> (Windows)... and not just to run in-house apps. However, if client
> platform-independance is an issue, then by all means use Forms 9i/10g, Java or
> C++ or whatever else. Of course, if ASP's are supported by non-IE browsers,
> then .NET is as viable as Forms is.

True today. But many of these same companies are beginning to realize that Linux costs a lot less. If they build a huge pile of MS reliant infrastructure it makes the cost of moving from Windows to Linux much more expensive.

>>8. More stable

>
> I doubt this.

I'll put my Linux, Solaris, or HP/UX machines up against any Windows machine and let a bunch of university students try to crack them or bring them down by any means possible. The Windows machine will be the first one to fry.

>>9. More scalable

>
> Debatable.

Even Microsoft doesn't use Windows for their own accounting system. Don't you think they would if they could?

>>10. There are several few companies that sell products that convert >>Oracle Forms to Java apps and Forms independence.

> Links? I am admittedly skeptical of such claims, because as far as I've ever
> seen, the conversions are buggy, maintenance nightmares. So much so, that
> they get thrown out and you start over from scratch.

http://www.rocketsoftware.com/portfolio/applicationtransfer/oracleforms.htm

>>From my experience with .NET ... I am far less than impressed. Some of 
>>the worst code I've ever seen has been in .NET. If you are going to work 
>>with SQL Server ... .NET may make sense. Against Oracle I'd definitely 
>>go with Forms. And if not forms I'd be looking at Delphi or other tools 
>>as my second choice.

>
> I cannot speak to what you've seen--just as the reverse is true--but I've seen
> nothing in .NET so far that makes it seem predisposed to writing bad code
> either. As far as Windows apps go, .NET is very powerful, IMHO. By far,
> more so than Forms, and probably on par, at the very least, to any other
> product you could name, including Delphi.

Perhaps. But the development cost is far higher.

> Against Oracle-only databases, Forms 6i is great... if it weren't being
> desupported, I'd be using it now. I've already made my feelings known about
> 9i and it's web-only deployment, and I cannot speak to 10g until I know
> something about it. But note that the OP indicated (I thought) that he might
> be connecting to non-Oracle databases as well... and, in that case especially,
> Forms isn't a very good choice, IMO.

If not connecting to Oracle I'd be inclined to agree with you. I don't see it as a generic tool though I know it could be used that way. It just isn't its strong point.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Tue Jan 20 2004 - 18:58:06 CST