Re: Oracle Forms vs Visual Studio .Net

jeff_at_work.com (Jeff) wrote in message news:<bujkka$ddc$1_at_cronkite.cc.uga.edu>...
> 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.

[snip]

Jeff, whether your household is a household of 1 or a household of 12 your responsibility is to earn as much over the long run as well as consistently possible. There is that which is fun (or ideal, or optimum) and there is that which pays the bills. Sometimes they are not the same.

Greg  

>
>
> >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.
>
>
> >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 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?
>
>
> >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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> >8. More stable
>
> I doubt this.
>
>
> >9. More scalable
>
> Debatable.
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> > 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,
> moreso than Forms, and probably on par, at the very least, to any other
> product you could name, including Delphi.
>
> 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.
Received on Wed Jan 21 2004 - 07:26:06 CST