Studio 6.1 method lines increased to 256K

Bastiaan Olij bastiaan at
Thu Aug 7 21:17:02 EDT 2014

Hi Geir,

I like your comparison with SQL, which for me was always a given as I
started with SQL but I can fully see that someone programming mainly DML
based solutions in those days would scratch their ear in the same way I
am now scratching my ear about all the development going into the
javascript client. It may very well be that 10 years from now it turned
out to be a golden move for TL and that those who've fully made the
switch will judge us fat client boys in the same way us SQL boys look at
those still stuck on the DML.

For me only getting on board in Omnis 7 days and having seen the
evolution of the product through all the iterations of Studio had been a
bliss up till v4. Every version brought new things I actually needed and
when my previous employer decided v3 would be the last version of Studio
they would use I was sad for lack of being able to use some of the
excellent enhancements in v4.

Your long list of enhancement requests (I vagelue remember some of the
discussions you mentioned) had many good but also many unrealistic
You name a compiler but the problem is that part of the Omnis approach
does not lend itself to compilation, not to mention that any dynamic
code where you add fields and code to your window would run aground. I
find it equally ironic that most of the common languages used nowadays
are all runtime languages (javascript, php, python, ruby..., though yes,
some use JIT compilers or compile to bytecode to precompile as much as
But equally so, Omnis lite to this day would be an excellent product.
While it is all the same to me I do believe, and have often said, that
Studio lost part of its competitive edge in the way it approach object
orientation basically turning our 4GL language into a 3GL that is less
effective then the other 3GLs that are out there. It introduced
complexity that doesn't appeal to the people who would chose Omnis over,
say, Python or C++.

And finally completely off topic, Swift looks very interesting. From
what I've seen so far its a language I think I would greatly enjoy but
I'll hang out until it leaves the Apple ecosphere.



On 8/08/14 12:39 AM, Geir Fjærli wrote:
> I am tempted to point out that Omnis always have been «lagging behind» on some technologies when trying to catch up on others. Example: All the work spent on SQL connectivity for Omnis 7, which had the numerous developers that were still on the native DML (some still are) ask why and point to their pet enhancement requests. I actually went to Mitford once in the early Studio days with a list of wishes from Scandinavian developers. Many of them was things they could not do in Omnis 7, that they still could not do in Studio, and which made them (rightly so?) refuse to upgrade their apps. Remember the informal list poll once which indicated that what many developers wanted was a new Omnis Lite, which could best be described as Omnis 5 with all the window controls from Studio. So no OO, no SQL.
> Going back even further in time developers were split between those who wanted a compiler to speed up runtime execution, and those who wanted Mitford to catch up to 4D on «sexiness». 
> My long lost and forgotten Omnis Studio wish list was 13 pages long. many of which I am sure are still outstanding. I have long since realized that Mitford cannot do 13 pages of smaller wishes and ever get around to the bigger ones. And I am glad I am not the one to make those priorities.
> I am also beginning to think I am glad that they do prioritize new technologies after all. It might not help all (I have clients that I have now retired from still on Omnis 7), and it won’t help me, but I think it is necessary they do this lest Omnis retire with me…
> Yes, there are other superior products out there for creating web apps. but I am not sure that is an argument for advicing the Mitford cobblers to stick to their last. While some may be wearing their original footwear, there might not be much of a future demand for it.
> I remember working on a project for a Norwegian insurance company in the Omnis 7.3 days when a corporate policy decision mandated all applications to be web based. We derided the idea, partly of course because web based solutions was not yet up to the task, but partly because nothing at the time suggested Omnis would be. So I remember us saying stuff to management like «Web based apps will never satisfy corporate standards.» Famous last words, even if it took the company years to get there. What I should have done was go to Mitford and say «What about that web stuff».
> I guess the sad fact eventually was that I myself could not keep up with the new technologies, and therefore focused on the things I thought I knew. I envied the likes of Clifford and other who seemed to grasp all that new stuff. Eventually, by taking on «safe» projects rather than challenging myself I ended up in a sad circle.
> Now I have all the time in the world to learn new stuff, but nowhere to use it. My next hobby is learning Swift. Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home…
> Geir :)

More information about the omnisdev-en mailing list