[Info-vax] For sale: VAXstation 4000/90 128MB Fully Working and Tested

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/1/2022 2:25 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/1/22 11:05, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/1/2022 8:14 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2022 4:30 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> ensure that frontend/UI technology is modern, there are so much
>>>>> to choose from, I would suggest Grails
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea whether Grails is good or bad.  To my mind there are 
>>>> too many of
>>>> these frameworks, it feels like a new one appears most days, spreading
>>>> themselves too thinly.
>>>
>>> It is not so much the quantity of "new" that is occurring, as the 
>>> contention of some that we all must embrace the "new", regardless of 
>>> whether what exists is working well and is not broken.
>>
>> I don't think the claim is that you should embrace the new.
> 
> Of course it is.  Just look at OOP.  COBOL users refused to accept it
> because it really offered nothing they needed to get the job done and
> added layers of unneeded complexity.  The result was a full force attack
> against COBOL that continues to this day.

I don't think anyone is telling developers to embrace OOP.

Modern software development is very much multi-paradigm. Procedural,
OOP, generic, FP and possibly with a tiny sprinkle of AOP. Developers
pick the tools they consider best for the task at hand.

I know you think the reason why Cobol is not in demand is that
universities does not teach it and attack it. But demand rules.
If the companies wanted Cobol for the new application they
create, then it would be Cobol. But they don't.

>> More like continuously evaluating whether new stuff has some
>> advantages over old stuff.
> 
> Most of it does not.  It's the old risk/benefit argument.  Most of the
> changes foisted onto the IT world offered little if any needed benefit
> and brought a lot of risk that adversely affects business daily.

If you look at the world, then I think you will see that companies
that are investing in new technologies thrive, while those that stick
to what just works fine as always dwindle.

>>> Once again I refer to the wheel, which isn't broken, and doesn't need 
>>> replaced.
>>
>> If you took the wheels from your first car and put on your current 
>> car, > then I suspect that you would not like them.
> 
> But is that due to a flaw in the wheel or the fact that they forced
> changes in the car to require different wheels?
> 
>>
>> The old wheels worked but some progress has been made since then.
> 
> Not in their general design.  I suppose you are one of those
> people who think low profile tires are the cat's pajamas.

A wheel is defined as a round thing you drive on, so that
cannot change - else it would not be a wheel anymore.

But wheels has changed over time.

Antique massive wood wheels to middleage/renaissance wood with spokes
and iron "tire" to metal with tension spokes and round rubber tire with
tube to massive metal wheels with with more square rubber ties with tube
to alloy wheels with tubeless radial tires.

Just with the tires the design, the thread patterns and the rubber
compound has changed a lot to improve characteristics.

Arne