A whitepaper on ABLUnit testing framework describing an end to end scenario to is available at https://community.progress.com/community_groups/openedge_development/m/documents/2260.aspx.
.
Great whitepaper. Thanks for letting our community users know.
Fantastic! Thank you very much for this much needed resource.
Thank you very much!
While I applaud the work that has gone into this, I wonder why the examples are still purely procedural based, while OpenEdge supports OO for more than 10 years now...
Thank you Lieven for your feedback. The end to end flow and the process will be same for both Procedures and Classes, we have chosen Procedures. If you are looking for any specific scenario using classes, we will try to provide an example.
Hi Divya,
I'm sure you've had your reasons to chose the procedural approach, but to me it seems like Progress is stuck in the past, and doesn't want to educate its long-time users to the OO-way of working. Sure there's lots of procedural code out there, but that doesn't make it right to write white papers in 2015 still using that approach, showing screenshots of classic 4gl frames. You say it yourself that the process to write unit tests is practically the same for classes, then why not directly use them as an example?
I keep thinking that Progress tries to scare away developers that come from another modern OO language, by throwing in all these old-style code. ABL code can be modern, but please show it to the outside world...
Wow.... I find myself defending PSC twice in the same week :-)
While it would be nice to have an OO version of this whitepaper... we have to keep in mind that the vast majority (really really vast) of Progress shops are still writing/maintaining procedural code.
I am just happy the code is actually using NO-UNDO (in some places at least)... and mildly upset that NO-LOCK still isn't showing up in sample code.
Wow.... I find myself defending PSC twice in the same week :-)
While it would be nice to have an OO version of this whitepaper... we have to keep in mind that the vast majority (really really vast) of Progress shops are still writing/maintaining procedural code.
I am just happy the code is actually using NO-UNDO (in some places at least)... and mildly upset that NO-LOCK still isn't showing up in sample code.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Most Progress users aren't comfortable switching between OO and procedural. Most have never even seen OO in any language.
I think sometimes we fall into the trap where we interact with a smaller circle of advanced users and think that they represent the Progress user base as a whole.
It would be nice to see both approaches available (especially to help users compare the differences) but I understand why PSC does procedural first.
Hi Divya,
I'm sure you've had your reasons to chose the procedural approach, but to me it seems like Progress is stuck in the past, and doesn't want to educate its long-time users to the OO-way of working. Sure there's lots of procedural code out there, but that doesn't make it right to write white papers in 2015 still using that approach, showing screenshots of classic 4gl frames. You say it yourself that the process to write unit tests is practically the same for classes, then why not directly use them as an example?
I keep thinking that Progress tries to scare away developers that come from another modern OO language, by throwing in all these old-style code. ABL code can be modern, but please show it to the outside world...
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Most Progress users aren't comfortable switching between OO and procedural. Most have never even seen OO in any language.
I think sometimes we fall into the trap where we interact with a smaller circle of advanced users and think that they represent the Progress user base as a whole.
It would be nice to see both approaches available (especially to help users compare the differences) but I understand why PSC does procedural first.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Most Progress users aren't comfortable switching between OO and procedural. Most have never even seen OO in any language.
I think sometimes we fall into the trap where we interact with a smaller circle of advanced users and think that they represent the Progress user base as a whole.
It would be nice to see both approaches available (especially to help users compare the differences) but I understand why PSC does procedural first.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Most Progress users aren't comfortable switching between OO and procedural. Most have never even seen OO in any language.
I think sometimes we fall into the trap where we interact with a smaller circle of advanced users and think that they represent the Progress user base as a whole.
It would be nice to see both approaches available (especially to help users compare the differences) but I understand why PSC does procedural first.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
Do you really think a perceived lack of OO has anything to do with young programmers not embracing Progress?
My experience shows it is a mix of never having heard of Progress in the first place or noticing that there are quite a few more jobs out there for java, .NET, PL/SQL, etc.
Again... I am not saying that people should not embrace OO where it makes sense. I am not even saying that PSC shouldn't provide OO examples/whitepapers. I am saying I understand why they tend to focus on procedural examples.
Do you really think a perceived lack of OO has anything to do with young programmers not embracing Progress?
My experience shows it is a mix of never having heard of Progress in the first place or noticing that there are quite a few more jobs out there for java, .NET, PL/SQL, etc.
Again... I am not saying that people should not embrace OO where it makes sense. I am not even saying that PSC shouldn't provide OO examples/whitepapers. I am saying I understand why they tend to focus on procedural examples.
Flag this post as spam/abuse.
I am sure it happens from time to time. I just think if you polled the average college graduate about languages they have heard about... Progress would not be near the top of the list.
It's good to see that I've started some discussion.
I think it's important for Progress to realize that, although many existing OpenEdge developers are (only) used to procedural development, if Progress wants to stay in the game they should evolve and move the focus from the old-school to the new-school.
I'm still waiting for the moment in a PUG challenge keynote speech where the speaker doesn't emphasize the fact that a lot of attendees are using Progress for 10/20/30 years, but ask the question how many of them are new to Progress in the last couple of months/years. That number would be less encouraging if you ask me...
At our company we're also struggling to find new (young) developers willing to start programming in ABL. The image of the language is the major turnoff factor here. Luckily the (older and young) people we currently have are ambitious enough to use and experiment with new features in the language to try and modernize our applications...
Besides that important issue there are a couple of others, pricing being a very important one. I've heard of this issue first hand of dutch customers. I would not consider learning progress again if I were to start all over again because of job uncertainty.
I would certainly learn progress, just as I've learned Prolog. It broadens my perspective. That being said, you guys at Progress, do you still use Commodore 64 computers?