Why did Microsoft not redesign AL as a programming language when switching to Business Central?

xHorizon

Hi there,

When Microsoft decided to change the old platform of NAV to Business Central and change the programming language that is used to develop functionality inside of Business Central. Why did they not make AL an full fledged OOP language to support a more mordern way of developing solutions for Business Central?

bbrown

Simpe answer is likely cost. Any expense incurred in developing or improving commercial software needs to be recoverable by selling that software. Such an investment would likely not result in a sales increase to offset the investment.

Jaska

It's the question that bothered me for years. And I've finally got to the point of no more questions to Microsoft and decided to write a full fledged OOP alternative based on Python. https://www.fieldconn.com/#pral-table

I haven't had time to document the UI part like page, report(pdf) etc. But they are there and the platform is fully functional.

xHorizon

Jaska wrote: »

It's the question that bothered me for years. And I've finally got to the point of no more questions to Microsoft and decided to write a full fledged OOP alternative based on Python. https://www.fieldconn.com/#pral-table

I haven't had time to document the UI part like page, report(pdf) etc. But they are there and the platform is fully functional.

Wow, cool. It's a shame that Microsoft didn't invest some time and money to redesign AL to something like that, whether it would have been in python/C# or something else or still based on AL but full fledged OOP.

Jaska

Totally agree. On one hand. they can't give up the business logic(objects) written in CAL. On the other hand, they can't use any of the mature mainstream OOP languages to replace CAL. So, transforming CAL into AL with the prospect of possible OOP is what they have been attempting for years. It's like developing another OOP from scratch and we all know how time consuming that can be, given the fact that most of mature OOP took decades to get where they are now. The outcome, for many of the old timers including me, has been increasingly frustration and misery.

Just few screenshots on the UI part to offer a bit more details:

1. List Page


2. Card Page


3. Report

rocatis

Because application language is only one component in the system. Application knowledge is just as important, and those with extensive application knowledge have typically been working with C/AL for decades and essentially only knows C/AL. Scrapping C/AL for something complete different would simply jeopardize the knowledge base out there, and without that there is no BC whatsoever.