Talk:IDMS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. |
There are a few phrases in this article that come over as being rather subjective. "A marketing mistake"; "poorly thought-out". There are also unnecessary adjectives/adverbs which tend to diminish the article's authority, e.g. "extremely successful" rather than just "successful". Anyone object if I try and make it a bit more neutral?
Mhkay 12:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] a few phrases dripping with subjectivity??
Try the entire article. The sleight of hand used to describe IDMS as no longer existing--"was", "once", etc.--are telling of a biased author. IDMS is a product that has full support of Computer Associates. Older versions may no longer have TCC or client-care support, but those on the latest release can find tons of reference materials, user conferences sponsored by CA and training by CA. And, having been exposed to relational database development, I can state that is does not offer a greater advantage in terms of productivity or flexibility. Changes to database tables require revisits to stored procedures, triggers and ad hoc queries that may be impacted with poor performance; addition of an index to a table will slow an optimized query to a snail's pace. So, development involving relational databases matches traditional database design--scores of requirements meetings, tedious design sessions and ego-deflating reviews by database administrators.
So, the demise of network models, and IDMS, are about as exaggerated as claims that IMS is defuct. Both models and products drive a tremendous number of transactions, including most bank functions via ATM.
(above comments were unfortunately unsigned)
I coudn't find the word "once". The article largely uses the present tense in describing characteristics of the product, and the past tense in describing its history, which seems fair enough. The article does make it clear that IDMS is still in use today. But I don't think anyone would claim that it attracts many new users. It doesn't read to me as if the authors (collectively) have any axe to grind against IDMS, rather it reads to me as if it has mainly been written by people who were fond of the product and sad to see it overtaken by events. If there's a valid criticism of the overall tone of the article, it's the usual one that it's written with the help of a lot of personal knowledge but very little verifiable evidence.
