RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
From what we have experienced here, the addition of .NET applications on top of Unidata that replace existing green screen functions is not a benefit. Depending on how they are written. The users who have been using they older green screens, want them back. Clicking around .NET screens is not more productive or faster. The learning curve for new users is much lower and for the occasional user the interface is better, but when your dealing with how many orders a single person can process in one day, and how many phone calls one person can field in a day, the green screen is the fastest interface. The problem is that no one wants to buy a product that looks old. So software companies need to update to the latest technology to keep selling the product. For new installs I can say that there is a big advantage to having something that looks new and is easy to learn. I guess there is always a trade off when using new technology. But just because it's new doesn't mean it's better. Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Randall Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net I whole heartedly agree. The green screen is the crusher for our environment. As far as .Net and Visual Studio go, I don't think it takes even that much effort as having Pick Basic as .Net assemblies to modernize or help perception, although that would be terrific. What would be great is simply the ability to use U2 components in the .Net environment as easily as you can those of other databases. The biggest headache/difference is that of data awareness. The current Visual Studio and much more so in VS 2005 allow you to establish tables/procedures as predefined datasources that can be linked to controls. If we did that, our U2 environments could be used by the dotnet world same as any other database.That puts us on an equal or closer footing with the SQL guys. Then the other features of U2 (flexible dictionaries, variable lengths, etc.) are enhancements to be pitched as selling points. Seems like a couple of vendors started down that road (most notably RD's PDP). Maybe it one day it happens. Mike However my perception is to make PICK more acceptable to younger people and look more mainstream. U2 is hung more for the green screen than for anything else, it is perceived as archaic even though that is far from the fact. If a Blue Chip company was looking at U2, and the basic code was a .Net assembly and we could create tables, etc from the Microsoft Visual Studio it could be the difference between a sale win or loss. It could minimise management wanting to throw U2 out of sites for something more modern as the even older RDBMS. It is the perceptions, not the technicalities that have dropped U2 from mainstream. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
Jeff, Well said. I have been saying the same thing for years. Executives demand point-and-click, which is a great interface for some applications, but not rapid data entry. Perhaps it is telling more about their abilities then they would like to reveal. Oh well, they purchase the software. I look forward to post point-and-click so perhaps we can get to an interface that is functional, fast, and effective. Okay, I'm done. Thanks, Dave Schexnayder. :-) Cheetah Advanced Technologies, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lettau, Jeff Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:53 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net From what we have experienced here, the addition of .NET applications on top of Unidata that replace existing green screen functions is not a benefit. Depending on how they are written. The users who have been using they older green screens, want them back. Clicking around .NET screens is not more productive or faster. The learning curve for new users is much lower and for the occasional user the interface is better, but when your dealing with how many orders a single person can process in one day, and how many phone calls one person can field in a day, the green screen is the fastest interface. The problem is that no one wants to buy a product that looks old. So software companies need to update to the latest technology to keep selling the product. For new installs I can say that there is a big advantage to having something that looks new and is easy to learn. I guess there is always a trade off when using new technology. But just because it's new doesn't mean it's better. Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Randall Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net I whole heartedly agree. The green screen is the crusher for our environment. As far as .Net and Visual Studio go, I don't think it takes even that much effort as having Pick Basic as .Net assemblies to modernize or help perception, although that would be terrific. What would be great is simply the ability to use U2 components in the .Net environment as easily as you can those of other databases. The biggest headache/difference is that of data awareness. The current Visual Studio and much more so in VS 2005 allow you to establish tables/procedures as predefined datasources that can be linked to controls. If we did that, our U2 environments could be used by the dotnet world same as any other database.That puts us on an equal or closer footing with the SQL guys. Then the other features of U2 (flexible dictionaries, variable lengths, etc.) are enhancements to be pitched as selling points. Seems like a couple of vendors started down that road (most notably RD's PDP). Maybe it one day it happens. Mike However my perception is to make PICK more acceptable to younger people and look more mainstream. U2 is hung more for the green screen than for anything else, it is perceived as archaic even though that is far from the fact. If a Blue Chip company was looking at U2, and the basic code was a .Net assembly and we could create tables, etc from the Microsoft Visual Studio it could be the difference between a sale win or loss. It could minimise management wanting to throw U2 out of sites for something more modern as the even older RDBMS. It is the perceptions, not the technicalities that have dropped U2 from mainstream. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
If you use some care in design and layout of your windows screens, you can make them just as effective as green screen apps. Make sure you've set your tab order to a logical sequence, setup and use shortcut key combinations that make sense and use something like the down arrow to activate pick lists within combo boxes. Having a pretty interface does not mean you must use a mouse. The keyboard works in windows too! If all you do is paint pretty pictures and then leave the user to navigate with a mouse then yes, your keypunch folks will not be effective. On 4/29/05, Dave Schexnayder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff, Well said. I have been saying the same thing for years. Executives demand point-and-click, which is a great interface for some applications, but not rapid data entry. Perhaps it is telling more about their abilities then they would like to reveal. Oh well, they purchase the software. I look forward to post point-and-click so perhaps we can get to an interface that is functional, fast, and effective. Okay, I'm done. Thanks, Dave Schexnayder. :-) Cheetah Advanced Technologies, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lettau, Jeff Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:53 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net http://uvo.net UvBasic .Net From what we have experienced here, the addition of .NET applications on top of Unidata that replace existing green screen functions is not a benefit. Depending on how they are written. The users who have been using they older green screens, want them back. Clicking around .NET screens is not more productive or faster. The learning curve for new users is much lower and for the occasional user the interface is better, but when your dealing with how many orders a single person can process in one day, and how many phone calls one person can field in a day, the green screen is the fastest interface. The problem is that no one wants to buy a product that looks old. So software companies need to update to the latest technology to keep selling the product. For new installs I can say that there is a big advantage to having something that looks new and is easy to learn. I guess there is always a trade off when using new technology. But just because it's new doesn't mean it's better. Jeffrey Lettau ERP Systems Manager polkaudio -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Randall Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net http://uvo.net UvBasic .Net I whole heartedly agree. The green screen is the crusher for our environment. As far as .Net and Visual Studio go, I don't think it takes even that much effort as having Pick Basic as .Net assemblies to modernize or help perception, although that would be terrific. What would be great is simply the ability to use U2 components in the .Net environment as easily as you can those of other databases. The biggest headache/difference is that of data awareness. The current Visual Studio and much more so in VS 2005 allow you to establish tables/procedures as predefined datasources that can be linked to controls. If we did that, our U2 environments could be used by the dotnet world same as any other database. That puts us on an equal or closer footing with the SQL guys. Then the other features of U2 (flexible dictionaries, variable lengths, etc.) are enhancements to be pitched as selling points. Seems like a couple of vendors started down that road (most notably RD's PDP). Maybe it one day it happens. Mike However my perception is to make PICK more acceptable to younger people and look more mainstream. U2 is hung more for the green screen than for anything else, it is perceived as archaic even though that is far from the fact. If a Blue Chip company was looking at U2, and the basic code was a .Net assembly and we could create tables, etc from the Microsoft Visual Studio it could be the difference between a sale win or loss. It could minimise management wanting to throw U2 out of sites for something more modern as the even older RDBMS. It is the perceptions, not the technicalities that have dropped U2 from mainstream. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
I'm always appalled at what seems to be the general consensus around here that a GUI interface and fast, efficient, effective data entry are mutually exclusive. Colin what the HE - double-hockey sticks is going on here Alfke Calgary, Canada -Original Message- From: Don Kibbey If you use some care in design and layout of your windows screens, you can make them just as effective as green screen apps. Make sure you've set your tab order to a logical sequence, setup and use shortcut key combinations that make sense and use something like the down arrow to activate pick lists within combo boxes. Having a pretty interface does not mean you must use a mouse. The keyboard works in windows too! If all you do is paint pretty pictures and then leave the user to navigate with a mouse then yes, your keypunch folks will not be effective. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
The concept of having Basic.Net assembly language is one I am interested in too. One could write the business rules in PICK Basic in a class and use VB or C# to develop the GUIs. Best of Both Worlds. I don't believe it is too complex; one of the open source PICK developers may be able to adapt their compilers to the .Net framework to achieve this. Regards David Jordan If you look around the internet, you'll see all sorts of languages that run in .Net (Cobol, Perl, Forth, etc). Pick the one(s) that work for you. I'm kinda surprised that no one has jumped and written Pick Basic.Nethttp://Basic.Netyet... :-) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
Sounds like exactly what you can do now with Redback. The product gives you total flexibility on how much logic is U2 and how much is in .Net.You can have all your business logic as U2 methods, all in .Net using U2 as simply a datastore, or anything in between. Mike Randall -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:01 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net The concept of having Basic.Net assembly language is one I am interested in too. One could write the business rules in PICK Basic in a class and use VB or C# to develop the GUIs. Best of Both Worlds. I don't believe it is too complex; one of the open source PICK developers may be able to adapt their compilers to the .Net framework to achieve this. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
David Jordan wrote: The concept of having Basic.Net assembly language is one I am interested in too. One could write the business rules in PICK Basic in a class and use VB or C# to develop the GUIs. Best of Both Worlds. I don't believe it is too complex; one of the open source PICK developers may be able to adapt their compilers to the .Net framework to achieve this. Regards David Jordan If you look around the internet, you'll see all sorts of languages that run in .Net (Cobol, Perl, Forth, etc). Pick the one(s) that work for you. I'm kinda surprised that no one has jumped and written Pick Basic.Nethttp://Basic.Netyet... :-) --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- [ E-mail scanned Virus Free by NAI - McAfee anti-virus system ] I am interested in the concept of mvbasic .NET myself but have not mentioned it on the list because I do not have the expertise to develop it. I did read that mv.Net from Bluefinity has a mv basic editor in the latest release. Maybe they are considering making it compatible with the .Net compiler. Ron White --- [ E-mail scanned Virus Free by NAI - McAfee anti-virus system ] --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
Isn't Universe/Unidata still using a runtime interpreter instead of generating assembler code? David Jordan wrote: The concept of having Basic.Net assembly language is one I am interested in too. One could write the business rules in PICK Basic in a class and use VB or C# to develop the GUIs. Best of Both Worlds. I don't believe it is too complex; one of the open source PICK developers may be able to adapt their compilers to the .Net framework to achieve this. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
U2 are 'semi-compiling' like pascal and java... That is the source code is parsed and transformed to a low level - easely parsed - language that is interpreted at run time. -- mats Roger Glenfield wrote: Isn't Universe/Unidata still using a runtime interpreter instead of generating assembler code? David Jordan wrote: The concept of having Basic.Net assembly language is one I am interested in too. One could write the business rules in PICK Basic in a class and use VB or C# to develop the GUIs. Best of Both Worlds. I don't believe it is too complex; one of the open source PICK developers may be able to adapt their compilers to the .Net framework to achieve this. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
I thought the OC.O was short for Orange County at the Ocean. -Original Message- From: Mats Carlid [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:55 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net U2 are 'semi-compiling' like pascal and java... That is the source code is parsed and transformed to a low level - easely parsed - language that is interpreted at run time. -- mats Roger Glenfield wrote: Isn't Universe/Unidata still using a runtime interpreter instead of generating assembler code? David Jordan wrote: The concept of having Basic.Net assembly language is one I am interested in too. One could write the business rules in PICK Basic in a class and use VB or C# to develop the GUIs. Best of Both Worlds. I don't believe it is too complex; one of the open source PICK developers may be able to adapt their compilers to the .Net framework to achieve this. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
Sounds like exactly what you can do now with Redback. The product gives you total flexibility on how much logic is U2 and how much is in .Net.You can have all your business logic as U2 methods, all in .Net using U2 as simply a datastore, or anything in between. Mike Randall The functionality is there from RedBack, MvBasic .Net, Raining Data, UvObjects .Net However my perception is to make PICK more acceptable to younger people and look more mainstream. U2 is hung more for the green screen than for anything else, it is perceived as archaic even though that is far from the fact. If a Blue Chip company was looking at U2, and the basic code was a .Net assembly and we could create tables, etc from the Microsoft Visual Studio it could be the difference between a sale win or loss. It could minimise management wanting to throw U2 out of sites for something more modern as the even older RDBMS. It is the perceptions, not the technicalities that have dropped U2 from mainstream. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
I whole heartedly agree. The green screen is the crusher for our environment. As far as .Net and Visual Studio go, I don't think it takes even that much effort as having Pick Basic as .Net assemblies to modernize or help perception, although that would be terrific. What would be great is simply the ability to use U2 components in the .Net environment as easily as you can those of other databases. The biggest headache/difference is that of data awareness. The current Visual Studio and much more so in VS 2005 allow you to establish tables/procedures as predefined datasources that can be linked to controls. If we did that, our U2 environments could be used by the dotnet world same as any other database.That puts us on an equal or closer footing with the SQL guys. Then the other features of U2 (flexible dictionaries, variable lengths, etc.) are enhancements to be pitched as selling points. Seems like a couple of vendors started down that road (most notably RD's PDP). Maybe it one day it happens. Mike However my perception is to make PICK more acceptable to younger people and look more mainstream. U2 is hung more for the green screen than for anything else, it is perceived as archaic even though that is far from the fact. If a Blue Chip company was looking at U2, and the basic code was a .Net assembly and we could create tables, etc from the Microsoft Visual Studio it could be the difference between a sale win or loss. It could minimise management wanting to throw U2 out of sites for something more modern as the even older RDBMS. It is the perceptions, not the technicalities that have dropped U2 from mainstream. Regards David Jordan --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] uvo.net UvBasic .Net
Mike, I'm confused about your Maybe one day it happens comment right after you refer to our ability to do this with existing tools. Yes, PDP.NET does allow you to directly bind a data source to data aware components. It's one of those demo tricks that you can do in a presentation but it's seldom done in a real app without careful consideration. mv.NET from jBASE (BlueFinity) further includes the ability to page data, rather than filling a remote dataset with an entire file. (Not really sure if PDP.NET can do that without tweaking, I tend to write this sort of thing from scratch.) Without getting too technical, I just want to put into terms what you're describing there. A dataset is composed of one or more datatables. The dataset also includes the ability to relate fields in those tables, like linking header to detail records. Updates are controlled via constraints. Access to the database is done through four main command types: Select, Insert, Update, Delete. Interfacing a database to this construct is done through data adapters which come in data providers - ergo the name Pick Data Provider .NET. Once the data is in this format it can be handed to any other .NET component and is virtually indistinguishable from any other dataset. So you see, we (the Pick market) _are_ there and we _can_ do these things you describe. The initial release of the mv.NET product is not as much of an ADO.NET Data Provider as PDP.NET is, but the upcoming release due out soon will be even more so than PDP (supporting all four data methods described above, etc). HTH Tony Gravagno TG@ removethisNebula-RnD .com - Owner, Nebula RD providing MV, web, and .NET development services - Technical Editor for C#Builder KickStart from SAMs Publishing - Technical Editor for many C# articles published in mainstream magazines - Author of Web Services and .NET article series, Spectrum Magazine - See my Spectrum conference recap in the latest Spectrum Magazine Mike Randall wrote: The current Visual Studio and much more so in VS 2005 allow you to establish tables/procedures as predefined datasources that can be linked to controls. If we did that, our U2 environments could be used by the dotnet world same as any other database.That puts us on an equal or closer footing with the SQL guys. Then the other features of U2 (flexible dictionaries, variable lengths, etc.) are enhancements to be pitched as selling points. Seems like a couple of vendors started down that road (most notably RD's PDP). Maybe it one day it happens. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
