Re: Oracle Forms vs Visual Studio .Net

In article <1074646616.183187_at_yasure>, Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:

>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.

Bluster, buster. If you can be at beta testing in 5 minutes, then my hats off to you.

>> 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.

Did you even read that thread??? It's NOT supported for production deployment. In fact, they specifically state that you NEED a 9iAS license. Yeah, I suppose you can buy the 9iAS license and only do the OC4J thing, but, hello, that's EXPENSIVE... and not exactly a minor detail to leave out.

>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.

9iAS was "challenging" in more ways than simply the installer. If that's the only improvement, then the nightmare continues, IMHO.

>>>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 was/am well aware of your position on this, which is why I was a little surprised at your comments in your previous post. I brought up 6i in mine because, to me, it's the last version that I would even recommend (seeing as it was the last CS version), so when you called it meaningless, I wondered if you'd changed your tack.

>>>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.

I cannot yet speak to that... I am new to it yet. However, I would be surprised if there wasn't SOME way to accomodate this... either through SP or such. There is a M$-provided "data provider" for Oracle, which uses the native Oracle client (which is why I prefer it over the OLE DB connection). It's possible that some of that advanced functionality is supported there.

BTW, what's the difference between a TIMESTAMP and a DATETIME?

>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.

It's expensive if they transition from Windows to Linux? And if they don't?

As I said, Windows dominates the desktops and not just because you've an app to deploy. As long as there's all that other software that people need Windows for, it's not likely that the OS wars will heat up again soon.

>>>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.

My original thought was that you were saying that a Forms app is more stable than a .NET app, running under the same OS. This simply isn't true in my experience, so far.

I won't argue the stability of Windows over Linux--I'm no fool--but I don't believe your argument is fair or valid either. You're deploying a Forms app on a single server (we'll assume Linux) that's probably exposed to the internet, while I'm deploying a .NET app on clients that aren't. Do you seriously think that's a fair comparison... or even one that works in favor of your argument? Only if I decided to deploy to the web (only for internet customers) would this even become a fair comparison, and I ask you, honestly, would you seriously deploy Forms to the web for internet customers??? I certainly wouldn't. There are many network topologies that can make a server or client more or less vulnerable to hacking... this discussion could degenerate rapidly if we're to bring all of that into what was, I thought, a comparison between .NET and Forms.

>>>9. More scalable
>>
>> Debatable.
>
>Even Microsoft doesn't use Windows for their own accounting system.
>Don't you think they would if they could?

Do they use Forms??? If so, you got me. I bow to the king.

Again, comparing Apples to Apples (ah, maybe we should leave them out of this ;-)), I think the scalability of Forms versus .NET is very debateable.

>>>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

Have you tried said software? I can find no mention of it outside of that site, no reviews, nothing, not even in usenet. I've no reason to believe it'll be any better than what I'd expect. Some firsthand testimony could change my mind.

>> 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.

Based on what?

>> 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.

So then, basically, you are inclined to agree with my original response to the OP. Thanks! I knew I wasn't wasting my time. :-) Received on Wed Jan 21 2004 - 08:50:20 CST