|
|
|
|
|
by DaiPlusPlus
2114 days ago
|
|
> Progress management I talked to did NOT want to stand behind SQL for CRUD applications. Of course not - the entire business model behind OpenEdge (which is far from "open") is to have applications built with their laughably irrelevant ABL/4GL language and only working with data in OLTP / one-record-at-a-time because that makes it almost impossible to switch to the conventional (RDBMS + web-service + frontend) architecture that the entire industry shifted to 20 years ago. OpenEdge (nee "Progress DB") was a cool platform in the late-1980s through to the early 2000s because it supported IBM's AS/400, MS Windows, and Linux - with their UI system that let you design an input form once and have it magically work in text-mode AS/400 terminals and the Windows desktop - but the fundamental design of OpenEdge is still based on its AS/400 roots and it really doesn't work well with modern systems (e.g. it has this design with multiple "broker" processes which is a PITA to configure). Their anti-open-source article on Progress' website that the GP post linked to was infuriating to read: it felt like the same anti-GPL propaganda that did the rounds around 2003 when SCO was claiming Linux contained their copyrighted code and Microsoft was astroturfing articles about the "risks" of open-source code and seemingly intentionally confusing people about MIT/Apache vs. GPL licenses. Le sigh. |
|