The application development packaging changes and strategy that IBM's Rational Software Group announced this year have rocked the System i world, and industry experts are still reacting. The first clue that a major upheaval was afoot came a year ago when George Farr, the product manager for System i development tools and compilers, dropped hints that WDSc might be broken up into more palatable components — a move that could potentially lower costs for basic programming features and keep the Advanced Edition less cluttered and more affordable.

The biggest customer concerns at the time focused on Screen Designer and Application Diagram Viewer, which were announced as part of WDSc 7.0 Advanced Edition.

With V6R1, much has changed. IBM added Rational Developer for System i (RDi), which is a new product targeted at System idevelopers for edit/compile/debug, and RDi SOA, which boosts functionality for programming for the web — including EGL, into which IBM seems to be breathing new life. HATS for 5250 now contains both HATS and WebFacing in one product. For details about these new bundles and choices for System i app dev pros, check out Farr's article "IBM Revitalizes System iApp Dev Tools in V6R1" (April 2008, article ID 21228 at SystemiNetwork.com).

A particularly interesting point about these changes is that they seem, at least in part, designed to help IBM Rational understand which products its i5/OS customers actually use and want. This in turn will help the IBM business unit better recognize where it should throw development resources for enhancements and support. If System i developers buy and use RDi SOA, for example, Farr and his unit would likely acquire some leverage within the IBM Rational organization to add enhancements. On the flip side, if no one uses RDi SOA, Rational would have an excuse to rework or kill it.

Earlier this year, IBM invited prominent System i developer-focused experts to a technology preview of the company's new System i development strategies. I did something similar. I asked some of our industry's best minds a few open-ended questions about IBM's changes and efforts so far. Luminaries Aaron Bartell, Bob Cozzi, Susan Gantner, Jon Paris, Trevor Perry, and Paul Tuohy offered their perspectives.

Here's a roundup of their points of view:

NEWS: IBM has announced RDi, RDi SOA, and HATS for 5250. In your opinion, are these product solutions going to hit the sweet-spot needs of System i developers or particular segments of developers?

Susan Gantner (former IBMer and now Partner400 management consultant): "I think the products and the packaging that are RDi and RDi SOA are really sort of a repackaging of the tool set that's already in WDSc to a great extent, and repackaging into a basic version and a more advanced version is probably a good thing. My biggest concern with it is that because there's no entitlement for existing WDSc users for RDi, it's going to have a negative impact because they [customers] are entitled to the old tool. My concern isn't so much the repackaging but the pricing of the package. My fear is that it may stop or slow the trend that we were clearly seeing toward people moving to more advanced workstation development tools. My fear is that some people will stop in their tracks and stick with SEU because there's an extra charge they don't want to try to justify to their management. It's not that the charge is unjustified — I mean I think it's a pretty cheap price, really, for the productivity gains — but it does add an extra hurdle to get people to move to the newer development tools. I like the idea that they've packaged just the basic 'I want to replace PDM/SEU' sort of tools as a separate thing from the rest of the web development — WebFacing in HATS and EGL and all that, which I think is a good idea."

Jon Paris (former IBMer and now Partner400 management consultant): "I think what's promising is that with the exception of the very tiny group in Toronto, it's the first time that the IBM Software Group, specifically the Rational portion of it, has shown any significant interest in the platform for some time. That's the good news, to me, that they are taking it seriously as a platform. EGL has some promise, but they've had some problems with some of its disciples running around saying that you should throw away your RPG and use EGL instead. I believe they have stopped that now, but it was a very bad message. EGL looks like a good product for extending RPG applications, but the only substitute for RPG is RPG."

Paul Tuohy (IBM midrange systems application development and training professional): "The products are a 'natural' continuation of what was there before. The major difference is the clear distinction between RDi and RDi SOA. IBM/Rational is obviously placing a lot of faith in the potential appeal of EGL. It has its advocates, but we will have to wait and see if the base is willing to adopt it."

Bob Cozzi (RPG specialist): "There's not much new here except for some incremental upgrades to HATS and WDSc (now called RDi). The big success is that I believe George Farr has successfully repacked WDSc in the base RDi offering in such a way that virtually every System i shop can now move off SEU/PDM/SDA/debug and into the GUI-based RDi. It installs faster and runs in a much smaller footprint than even WDSc 7. The pricing issue may or may not be a problem — I'm not certain how that will play because every System i shop seems to think of IBM-supplied software differently than, for example, third-party software.

"The other products, RBD [Rational Business Developer] and RDi SOA, are a bit much for day-to-day System i shops, but there are a few niche shops that will need these versions of the product, so it's good that they're available. As for HATS, now that WebFacing is effectively rolled into HATS, there will hopefully be less confusion about which one to use. Most people should be considering web-browser-based user interfaces anyway. HATS gets the 5250 apps there faster, but handwritten browser interfaces with RPG IV back ends are the future of System i — well, actually they're the 'today' not the future."

Aaron Bartell (RPG and Java developer): "No matter which way you slice it, IBM is planning to gracefully send RPG out to the pasture. They will never tell you that, but when you see a hammer and nails in their hand and coffin wood in the back of their pickup, well, it's just a matter of time until somebody tries to start pounding those nails . . . .

"In the end, EGL will succeed in the general IT space because it simplifies Java development and makes it easier for business programmers who don't care as much about technology as they do about meeting business needs. EGL seems to seek the business language successes that RPG has already accomplished — which is why I am still shaking my head at IBM's decision. We received some excellent tooling in RDi SOA, but it is second best to what they could have provided if they weren't trying to boil the ocean (for example, to provide a single application infrastructure for all their business initiatives to migrate to). I think this personifies the disconnection between Rational and the i5/OS team. In my opinion, they could be quite successful in modifying the RPG programming stack to support native GUI and browser capabilities — essentially leading the pack in next-generation application development. Instead, they find it comfortable to follow other leaders such as Microsoft, Adobe, and Sun. They seem to like their red-ocean strategy when a blue ocean is right on the other side of the fence. Remove the competition through innovation and offering something that no other technology company can — a platform that has second-to-none productivity, security, robustness, and an easy application programming stack."

NEWS: Is there anything with IBM's new directions in this area that you think is particularly useful, cool, troublesome, or promising?

Bob Cozzi: "IBM's Jazz beta is very cool and very promising. Initially I thought, 'Oh good, I can take a nap while IBM talks about a bloated change-management/version-control/project-management package for mainframes.' But as it turns out, I kept up with them, and they did a pretty great job with it. I'm pretty excited about its potential for overall project management and team development. The best part is that it is System i-centric — that is, the System i is the focus and target platform, not an afterthought like so many IBM offerings in the past."

Paul Tuohy: "EGL is promising (but then again so was Java J). The smaller footprint and ease of installation for RDi is cool. I am pleased with the continued enhancements for RPG [IBM added RPG enhancements in V6R1, which was announced at the same time as RDi and so forth]."

NEWS: How about missteps? Anything not quite right?

Bob Cozzi: "Two things don't sit well with me. I already mentioned the RDi family-pricing structure. It seems an unusually high price once you get beyond the base 'entitlement' user count. IBM needs to realize that people just expect stuff to be 'free' with the System i. IBM created that culture and needs to handle it a bit more diplomatically. For example, small shops are going to be able to use RDi with little-to-no additional cost after they move to i5/OS Version 6, but the larger shops may see a huge cost, north of $20,000, just to replace SEU. To be honest, it is worth it? People just don't care about that with software, it seems."

Paul Tuohy: "The totally confusing pricing. I still have to sit down and go through the steps every time someone asks me how much it costs. The formula should be simple. The ILE compilers should be free. The new development tools should be minimal cost. The traditional compilers (RPG III) and development tools (PDM) should cost a lot more. There is the exception of RPG II (unless they are willing to invest in a clear migration path from S/36 to ILE), and they need to unbundle DFU from ADTS."

Jon Paris: "RDi SOA is begging for another name change. SOA is only going to be sexy for another year or two, and they are already starting to give it different names, and that's the biggest problem with it. IBM branded everything as VisualAge, then as WebSphere, and now everything is being branded as Rational, which in itself is a good idea, but now they are sticking SOA on the end, and I don't see it lasting. I'd rather it had a realistic name like Advanced or something."

Trevor Perry: "It seems to me that the current direction that Rational is taking does not match the vision of the future of i5/OS that Rational espouses. On one hand, IBM wants us to use RDi [and the other products], but they are upgrading current WDS licenses to entitlements of ADTS and charging for RDi. If they want customers to adopt RDi and move away from ADTS, they should switch that.

"I like that they are adding to the IDE for i5/OS, but it is coming rather slowly. We are just now getting a green-screen designer but no report designer. It seems to be a few small steps in a nicer package, but not a real evolution. I like that it is more open with each release, but they seem to be pushing more proprietary tools on us again. For example, Jazz does away with the entire need for third-party change-management tools. There is a whole industry that Rational seems to want to step on.

"Most of what it seems to be is a push to use EGL. They want us to get there now but have not given us an easy way to start with EGL. My concern is the view that Rational wants us to replace RPG with EGL based on their lack of transition road map or offerings. If the only way for RPG to get the web is HATS, which is essentially an outdated screen scraper with some dynamics, or to use EGL, which is a huge leap into something new for most RPG programmers, then I am concerned that Rational does not understand the i5/OS community.

"All that I see from Rational is a very non-i5/OS approach to the world. I don't think they understand our community. I do hope they change that quickly. For example, if they change the pricing to favor RDi over ADTS, this is a step in the right direction. I am willing to wait but not for much longer."

Bob Cozzi: "One thing IBM does very badly is, of course, marketing. Mostly this is because their marketing team doesn't appear to fully understand what the System i is and to whom to brand it. So with RDi, I think IBM may just lay their cards on the table and walk away, hoping it will somehow magically take off. When other vendors do a new product, software and to a lesser extent hardware, they participate in events (conferences, trade shows) and hold their own city-by-city promotion of the new or improved product. IBM used to do this in the S/38/36 days. They don't seem to do that at all; in fact, getting them to educate their own customers on their products is often like pulling teeth. They have the research and development pieces down pat. They're great at that part, but getting it into the hands of their customers and making them really want it (even if it's free) seems to be a foreign idea at IBM.

"To their credit, they have created something they're calling the 'ecosystem team,' which is charged with making sure they do everything necessary to sell, support, and distribute what is necessary to make their products a success. Typically, though, and I'm not trying to be an ass here, typically that means they've pushed off responsibility to someone else to do critical market support activities, for which no one will take responsibility. I sincerely hope this does not happen with RDi and the rest for the products, but we'll see where we are in 12 months."

Chris Maxcer is the news editor for System iNEWS and SystemiNetwork.com. In most industry reports, Chris edits out the bulk of any repetition between sources, but here he wanted to let it show through. "With issues as important as IBM’s RDi-based offerings, I like to share more of what these pros are saying to give a better flavor of what’s really on their mind," he says. "There’s one caveat, of course — these comments are a snapshot in time, and while sometimes it seems as if IBM is a glacier, at any moment an iceberg can break off and spark new perspectives."