🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <393@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jerry@uwmcsd1.UUCP (Jerry Lieberthal) writes:
> ...  At any rate, for ease
>of use and non-programmability (for non-programmers) I vote for UNIFY at
>the present time.
>
>Also ...

    It may be good for users, but have you seen all of the low level toys ?
They include just about all of the basic hooks into the system you could
want.  That is a lot more than be said of most systems (that I have seen).
They also offer a wide variety of tools and access methods to the data. 
For a manager (of the system) there are several ways to maintain basic data
format and it's easy to reconfigure and optimise after installation.  And
the end user gets all of the generic access stuff plus whatever the
software people customise from the tools.  Even operations people make
batch updates and gobs of reports.

    The scale is of the task is of little significants as you can whip up a
flat system with input screens in a few minutes and let it grow in to a
major integrated system as time goes on.  Since it was written with the 
smaller systems in mind it fits into a lot of smaller environments. However,
that does not restrice it's upward abilities.  UNIFY is ideal (in my opinion)
for most fixed record tasks.  It's overall performance is it's strongest
point.  Of course it is a little difficult having so many ways to perform
tasks.

Any counterpoint comments or opinions, public or private, welcome.


Rick  ...!cybvax0[!dmc0]!fbp

"Long live Darwinism ...   'till something better comes along"