Another FAILED n-Tier / OOP Web project.......

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi nospam,

If it's denial you want then talk to Herfried.

No, I was just referring back to a previous RANT.

I ain't judgin' DotNetJunkies. How can I? I know nothing
about them. You give me one 'side'. Empire City gives a very
good other side (not least of which is the quiet but confident
way in which he speaks - he doesn't seem to need to shout
like, ahem, some people). So now I have one and half sides
of what is still, for me, a hypothetical situation. So I continue
to defer judgement.

Regards,
Fergus

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi nospam,

|| but let's look at the broken and crappy Windows Registry.

Delving into it is often a necessary evil. :-( But for those in the
know, it is another shroud of mystery to cloak themselves in.

|| Win.ini files were doing quite nicely.

I liked ini files. The new kid on the block - Xml - is not as
readable (by us) but is easier for the programs.

|| Now you got this huge and UN-MAINTAINABLE
|| Registry that needs to be constantly backed up as it
|| only get bigger and more screwed up and your can't
|| CLEAN it anyway.

You forgot mysterious, monolithic, monstrosity.

Backup? And then restore to find you've lost some crucial
later additions!!

|| All this pain and misery for a little used feature(Registry) of
|| multiple users on your machine WHICH could have be
|| done in a better and far more reliable way.

There's nothing wrong with Identities - except that nobody uses
them.

|| And GUESS what, VS.NET Whidbey is finally starting to
|| realize this SIMPLICITY! No extraneous files when you
|| create a new project. and with .NET it is COPY and PASTE
|| simplicity when moving projects....
||
|| WOW!!! HOW REVOLUTIONARY!!!

Ah. Now I think you're coming to like this .NET stuff.
[This is Herfried-speak. He doesn't understand irony, let alone
sarcasm in capital letters]

|| K.I.S.S. is the architecture that has proven itself

Can't agree with you on this one nospam. KISS is just an
acronym - not an architecture. And it's an objectionable acronym
at that. Have you a better one which expresses the same sentiment
with a bit more politeness?

|| but of course these BOOK AUTHORS have never, from
|| scratch produced a full production level web site anyway
|| as they spend all their time selling and writing books and
|| tiny example code and snippets.

Ah. Now here, nospam, you're using Herfried-like logic. Self-
defeating. If you said '<some> of these blah, blah...' then I'd have to
agree. But not ALL. You lose credibility (you have any?) when you
make such absolutist statements. If I were to say, for instance, that
Herfried is a <total> jerk, I would be telling a lie. It's simply far too
emphatic and that diminishes its strength. PERIOD.

Regards,
Fergus

 

[William Ryan]

<<> Well, let's see. Do you frequently change databases to justify
n-TIER?>> Do you mean Database locations, instances or providers? I often
move the physical location of the DB and have added additional servers to
the cluster. I also have used XML as a failsafe mechanism in case a network
connection is lost.

<<What about the presentation TIER? Do you plan to make it accessible via a

PDA? IF so, just HOW many PEOPLE are going to sit and read an article on a
2 inch by 3 inch screen. That's about the size of a business card!!!>>

I treat the UI as it's own entity, period. Yes, as a matter of fact I do
have much of the functionality on a PDA. It's funny you mention that. The
new iPAQ 2240's are great. I know it's easy to knock their size, but if you
actually use one correctly, taking advantage of the today screen and
shortcuts, Bluetooth, IRDA etc, they totally rock.

it ported to ASP.NET? It's not easy is it? Have you made some major changes
or added really new features like what happens in the *corporate* world?>>

Ease isn't the issue. The PDA development market is booming and everyone is
just too swamped to do a full rewrite. There are many elements of it done
in ASP.NET, there's just no need to port it yet. But ASP vs. ASP.NET wasn't
your point...you were mentioning OOP in particular, and Devbuzz is a highly
OOP site. I can't take credit for the architecture but I can say that
Derrick did a brilliant job on it..and it's as OOP as ASP can get. And as
far as jobs leaving Offshore as you mentioned previuosly....learn the
Compact Framework..there's more work than there are good developers. As far
as the real corporate world goes, and I say this with all humility, we get a
tremendous amount of web traffic. Look at our Google or Alexa rating. you
can knock the fact that this isn't a 'real' enough site for you....but I'd
like to see what you've done, that has generated more traffic.

<<Ask yourself if you OR anyone you know has actually bought something sole

though the use of PDA.>> Yes, I have. I own three at the moment and love

them. Have you ever heard of Mobius? Google on it, Mobius2003. Check out
the attendees and see how serious many people take PDA development. Adding
yet another tier that didn't exist a few years back. Ask Handmark.Com or
Handango about the pervasiveness of PDA's. And head over to Europe some
time...there's more people sporting N-Gage's than you could shake a stick
at.

bring in more users? Who is going to pay for this and just who is going to
have the time to do it in the first place? Of what overall benefit $$$ will
it help you by having TWO different databases of which n-Tier is SUPPOSED
good for?>> Yes, and I do all the time. On the PDA for instance, I use

XML as the complete backend solution. From Oracle to SQL Server to Excel, I
can transfer data with no problem. This is accomplished by using well
thought out table structures, and it's very simple. BCNF is BCNF, on
Oracle, SQL Server or Access. .

are of what benefit have they really been to you? What's the ROI on the
extra development time?>> Why would I compute this, or anyone for this

matter. Total cost is really what matters in development, and the
flexibility affored by n-Tier pays for itself over and over when you factor
in reduced support costs and quick production times for enhancements.

<< What about the Object Model? I don't seen anything that super
sophisticated

in your site that really need it OR is actually being re-used

signifcantly.>>

What about it? What is super sophisticated? How can you tell how many
components or where they are located anyway? Give me a clear definintion of
super sophisticated and I can better answer this question.

and METHDOLOGY anyway and you have to use InterOp to talk to it? You only
end up supporting TWO different CODE BASES if you don't port it over. If
you want a new feature, you hope it has nothing to do with that legacy
LAYER, but BECAUSE it's a LAYER if runs across the ENTIRE app, so now your
are STUCK OR you end up splitting it up, VERTICALLY. moving section by
section over...HMMMMMMM....sounds like what I have been saying OH so LONG
AGO.>> Sorry, but this is just so wrong that I can't even address it.

there's nothing correct to build upon

<<> The solution is K.I.S.S., NOT OOP or n-TIER.>> If you understand OOP
and n-Tier, then you couldn't possibly argue that it violates KISS. OOP is
quite simple, although it's not necessarily easy. Huge difference here.

Once again, I ask for the third time, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT? What are you
proposing as an alternative? All the logic in the UI? Going back to Cobol?

 

[William Ryan]

<<Nice and dandy, now what about performance? what about reliability?
Say if someone needs to come in later and add a new feature?>>

We have tremendous traffic on Devbuzz as well as Infopro. Performance is
fine by all measures of feedback that either site can ascertain.
Reliability has nothing to do with OOP...so I don't know why that's even
mentioned.. but the only problems we've had are related to IIS, not OOP.

If someone wants a new Feature, No Problem. On both sites, I can make
modifications, totally change layout for users --- WHILE I'M ON THE PHONE
WITH THEM. I'll be glad to prove this if you doubt me. And I don't mean a
10 minute support call, I'm talking about < 2 minutes. Hit refresh, things
start a changing. AND the only reason I can do this is because of OOP
coupled with the wonders of Relational Database Mgt Systems.

<<> Do you have the SOURCE code to the Component One and Infragistics?>> I
do for Infragistics, the complete source code. With Component One, I got it
for free at a MS event about a week ago, so know, I didn't get the source
code too. But I can buy it and probably will iun the very near future.
With Infragistics though, it was a great deal to buy it with the source.
Totally component oriented...and an amazingly smart design framework --- All
thanks to OOP and components.

if they have a new version of their products and you implement them. Just
because you can have different versions running side by side doesn't make
maintenance easier. Now you have TWO code bases again and NOW you have to
remember which is which. .....this means LESS RELIABILITY and MORE

HASSLE...>> There's no doubt what I refer to are Objects. The definition
of an object is not some obscure subjective thing that leaves a lot to
interpretation. And yes, they are objects. Just b/c a new version comes
out doesn't mean I'd upgrade. We don't maintain seperate code bases for
the same SKU, unless you are talking about backups in Source Safe (which
obviously you aren't).

(1) IF THESE DEVELOPERS were so BRILLIANT, why do they need a COMPLETE
RE-WRITE of their so-called HOBBY code? Shouldn't they have forseen this?
AH, BUT you are completely wrong in this respect. It has NEVER, EVER a
HOBBY project and it was serious from the beginning as evidenced by the
books that they want to self-promote from the very beginning.

Everyone involved in the project, regardless of your opinion on OOP, is an
accomplished professional. For you to imply otherwise in disingenuous.
they've done more for the community than you ever have...or will. And
things change.. no one can alway read the future. And sometimes people make
mistakes. In grad school, I once got a C on a final where I had to write
out a multiple linear regression by hand. I made some calculation errors.
That doesn't make me stupid, nor does it negate the value of the model.

time to do it the right way with the OOP / n-Tier way.>> It's always

easier to let other people do the work and then find fault with it. Show me
one site that has your name on it, verifiable that is your work, that
generates more traffic or gets more respect from the developer community.

You can hate OOP all you want, but I think you are really being a jerk
attacking the intelligence of these folks. You make snide comments about
people that read things in books as though that somehow negates the value of
it. I read 2+2 = 4 in a book when I was a little kid...does that make it
wrong.

AND Reading Books still trumps FREESTYLING any day of the week. KISS as an
asnwer is a cop out. Let's see some of this code ro sites that are totally
cool and never need rework and aniticipate in advance every change that's
needed.

As an aside, I've never heard anyone at their site bitching about work
moving overseas ----- probably because their work is in demand as opposed to
the work of one of their critics.

 

[William Ryan]

Ferg:

I've asked him for a web site on multiple occassions. This guy designed
EBay, Amazon and every other stie, and he did it with Access 95 as a back
end. that's why he's all po'd that all these whacko OOP guys want to use
'overly complex' data sources like Oracle and SQL Server.

All he can ever post is KISS... and criticize the work of people making a
lot more money than him.... How many questions do you ever see him answer?

 

[Guest]

Like I said, I don't even know who this, Herfried is?

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi Bill,

Then I must indeed bow down. Access 95 serves Amazon? And the way
they keep extending the services on that site. And interacting with other sites
across the web. And providing .. [insert much and many...]

nospam you truly are a great designer to have created such a wonderfully
complex site with such a simple implementation.

Bill, thanks for putting me straight on this. I thought at first that nospam was
simply bad-mouthing the authors of the books that he (compulsively, it seems)
reads - but doesn't otherwise use - and that he'd never typed a line of code in
his life.

Regards,
Fergus

--
(Please ignore this - there's a feud going on)
==================================================
Thought for the day

Herfried: I don't need/want human interaction.
==================================================

 

[Guest]

Blah, blah, blah.....

It's been almost 2.5 years since .NET came out, yet your sites, DevBiz.com
is still asp.

Let someone know if you actually bought something ON your PDA. I know
people BUY PDA's but to have a
n-Tier architecture so that you can have different presentation tier is
POINTLESS. Let me know when you actually had someone buy something on their
PDA, otherwise, n-Tier's benefits are VAPOR WARE.

<<> The solution is K.I.S.S., NOT OOP or n-TIER.>> If you understand OOP
and n-Tier, then you couldn't possibly argue that it violates KISS. OOP is
quite simple, although it's not necessarily easy. Huge difference here.

OOP is COMPLEX, PERIOD. It's a unecessary abstraction at the cost of
simplicity and reliability

<<> See all of these TIERS, they don't seem to be used do they????? And if
matter. Total cost is really what matters in development, and the
flexibility affored by n-Tier pays for itself over and over when you factor
in reduced support costs and quick production times for enhancements.

The FLEXIBILITY of N-TIER NEVER PAYS FOR ITSELF. CASE in POINT.

All that BUSINESS OOP LOGIC YOUR CEO used to WRITE the DevBiz.com site.....
Guess, what? once you port that thing over the ASP.NET, your have to use
InterOp = SLOW and 2 code bases.

THESE are the FACTS...each new technology, OR NEXT big THING has been a
TOTAL RE-WRITE.

FROM BASIC to VB to VB6 to VB.NET
HTML, to ASP, to ASP.NET

Stuff written for DOS or Win95 can't really be used productively on Win2k or
XP.

YOU have NEVER used this FLEXIBILITY....

Just Look at FM Stock and Duwarmish...those sample sites are HORRID, a mix
of this and that..it's no wonder why projects fail.

<<> The solution is K.I.S.S., NOT OOP or n-TIER.>> If you understand OOP
and n-Tier, then you couldn't possibly argue that it violates KISS. OOP i s
quite simple, although it's not necessarily easy. Huge difference here.

Once again, I ask for the third time, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT? What are you
proposing as an alternative? All the logic in the UI? Going back to Cobol?

2-Tier, straight pages using code behind = K.I.S.S.

The logic is in the Code Behind pages just like it was designed to be. NOT
in modules that have to be called again by the code behind page anyway.

 

[Guest]

COMMENTS INLINE BELOW
for those OOP / n-TIER FANACTICS that are still in COMPLETE DENIAL

Hi nospam,

|| It's been almost 2.5 years since .NET came out, yet your sites,
|| DevBiz.com is still asp.

Let me get this right. They have a site. It's working. You want them to change
to a new methodology? Why? Why fix wot ain't broke? Are you trying to sell
.NET?

HEY COBOL still KEEP WORKING....it ain't broke so why fix it?
Same for eliminating procedural code...seem to be working just fine in COBOL
isn't it?




Some sort of cunning reverse-logic salesman or something?

|| OOP is COMPLEX, PERIOD.

OOP is complex <for a> period. And then you get to think how easy it is.

|| It's a unecessary abstraction at the cost of simplicity and reliability

OOP's abstraction, used well, reduces complexity, and increases simplicity
and reliability.

Simplicity and reliability??????
HA HA HA HA HA HA

GET REAL....Look at DotNetJunkies.com.....
lots of reliability and simplicity there when it's current status is what?

***SORRY WE ARE D.O.W.N. at DotNetJunkies.com***

These guys are some of the BEST programmers out there and they ACTUALLY made
a WEB SITE contrary to .NET architects out there and the MVP's and .NET
authors. And they are having PROBLEMS that requires for them to be down and
a TOTAL RE-WRITE of the engine.


Those are the DAILY FACTS AND FAILURES OF OOP AND N-TIER and you chose to
make excuses like it's common, YET these same OOP weirdos point their
fingers as COBOL....well GUESS WHAT?
COBOL IS STILL UP and RUNNING!!!!

|| each new technology, OR NEXT big THING has been a TOTAL RE-WRITE.

There you go with your absolutes again. TOTAL SCHMOTAL. If you
said major portions may need rewriting, I might agree. Come on nospam,
you are missing an important debating tactic - strengthen your arguments by
weakening the totalitarian statements.

Are you saying that I am not allowed to use ABSOLUTES?
So are you saying, "There are no ABSOLUTES", just shades of GRAY"...Uhhhh so
are you saying there is only ABSOLUTE GRAYS then?.....see the OXYMORONIC
statement that was just made?


BUT let's get back to facts. You can't use VB6 in VB.NET, nor could you use
Basic with VB6, or Pascal.

Can you really use ASP with ASP.NET? NOOOOOO.

How about programs for DOS? Can you use that on Win2k? How about Windows95
on WinXP? Not really and if it works it's not all that great.

What about Windows ME? That's great example of OOP and n-Tier, isn't it?


In each one of these things, something was TOTALLY, TOTALLY DIFFERENT and
all required a RE-WRITE. What happen when a totally NEW and GROUND BREAKING
hardware comes out? NOW YOU ARE really screwed and that so called FUTURE
saving are all FOR NOTHING.......

Tah Dah!!!
...that's the FACTS and HISTORY of an ever changing programming world of
code......RE-WRITE, RE-WRITE even when they SHOUT, RE-USE, RE-USE........BUT
GUESS what???

NOTHING GETS RE-USED...so why try when everything changes anyway?


You know what's even more IRONIC?

OOP was made to be flexible and extensible because of the statement,
"The only thing we can be sure of is change."

Well, GUESS, what else changes? The languages and technology itself!!!
DUHHHHHH!!!!!!

SO there you go, even that OOP model is OUT THE DOOR cause it's not
compatible with the new hardware OR the new language.........



But one thing that still remains the same, K.I.S.S. and the facts and
history of all technology use this again and again.

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi nospam,

|| It's been almost 2.5 years since .NET came out, yet your sites,
|| DevBiz.com is still asp.

Let me get this right. They have a site. It's working. You want them to change
to a new methodology? Why? Why fix wot ain't broke? Are you trying to sell
..NET? Some sort of cunning reverse-logic salesman or something?

|| OOP is COMPLEX, PERIOD.

OOP is complex <for a> period. And then you get to think how easy it is.

|| It's a unecessary abstraction at the cost of simplicity and reliability

OOP's abstraction, used well, reduces complexity, and increases simplicity
and reliability.

|| each new technology, OR NEXT big THING has been a TOTAL RE-WRITE.

There you go with your absolutes again. TOTAL SCHMOTAL. If you
said major portions may need rewriting, I might agree. Come on nospam,
you are missing an important debating tactic - strengthen your arguments by
weakening the totalitarian statements.

Regards,
Fergus

--
(Please ignore this - there's a feud going on)
==================================================
Quote of the day

Herfried:
I don't need/want human interaction.
==================================================

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi nospam,

Believe me, you don't want to know who he is.

But aren't you amazed that someone actaully agreed with you about
something for a change? Can't say I'll always do it, mind. Only when you
make a decent point - without being too adamant.

Regards,
Fergus

--
(Please ignore this - there's a feud going on)
==================================================
Quote of the day

Herfried:
I don't need/want human interaction.
==================================================

 

[Fergus Cooney]

Hi nospam,

You know that K.I.S.S. of yours? Well you should use it in your posts.
Because it's so hard to get those little nuggets of interesting and potentially
truthful wisdom out of the ramblings.

|| HEY COBOL still KEEP WORKING....it ain't broke so why fix it?

Exactly. Leave the fixing for when there's a clear need - like at DevBuzz.com
- they'll upgrade to .NET when there's a clear need for it (though that need may
well be 'the fun of it', and why not - it's their site).

|| Simplicity and reliability??????
|| HA HA HA HA HA HA

Are you laughing at your own experiences of implementing OOP?

|| GET REAL....Look at DotNetJunkies.com.....
|| lots of reliability and simplicity there when it's current status is what?

Sorry, I don't know the circumstances so I can't judge them.

|| And they are having PROBLEMS that requires for them to be down
|| and a TOTAL RE-WRITE of the engine.

Well, it may be problems, but it may be that there are other factors in their
decision. Without being a DotNetJunky it's hard to tell.

|| Those are the DAILY FACTS AND FAILURES OF OOP AND N-TIER

Not quite. It <may> be a failure of OOP/N-Tier but it <may> only a <partial>
failure or that may be a <minor factor> with there being other factors (which we
are not privy to, not being DNJs).

As for Daily Facts, I'm not sure what you mean. You're arguing from this
<one> instance to a <daily occurence> ?? 'Taint logical my friend.

|| and you chose to make excuses like it's common,

Hang on, hang on. I don't remember making any excuses - the OOP/N-Tier
thing is not where I've positioned my arguments at all so far. And when you say
'common' do you mean 'common' as in 'Daily Facts' common??

|| YET these same OOP weirdos point their fingers as COBOL....well
|| GUESS WHAT? COBOL IS STILL UP and RUNNING!!!!

Ha. We can agree!. Of course it is. Not as much as before and less in a
decade, perhaps. But still up and running.

|| > Come on nospam, you are missing an important debating tactic -
|| > strengthen your arguments by weakening the totalitarian statements.
||
|| Are you saying that I am not allowed to use ABSOLUTES?

Not at all. 'Allowed' is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you make a bad
choice when debating if you use absolutes. They make an easy target.

|| So are you saying, "There are no ABSOLUTES", just shades of GRAY"

Absolutely! There are only shades of grey.

|| ...Uhhhh so are you saying there is only ABSOLUTE GRAYS then?.....
|| see the OXYMORONIC statement that was just made?

I'm not sure that your wording is corerct there. There's a clearer oxymoron
in my answer above.

|| BUT let's get back to facts.

Facts?? In a nospam posting?? LOL. You're having me on!! ;-)) You joker, you!

|| You can't use VB6 in VB.NET, nor could you use Basic with VB6, or Pascal.

Ah - you mean self-evident facts. Almost like definitions.

|| In each one of these things, something was TOTALLY, TOTALLY
|| DIFFERENT and

See, now that's much, much better. I can agree completely there. Despite you
saying 'totally, totally different', you're only applying it to 'something'. Which leaves
plenty of other somethings to which it <doesn't> apply. So yes. I agree. Now we
can move on to discuss <which> something.

That's what I mean by absolute language. By not using it there, you allow
the discussion to move on. I can't logically say you're wrong because you aren't.

ps. I appreciate the tease with you using TOTALLY, TOTALLY. That'll
teach <me> to talk about absolutes!! ;-)

|| and all required a RE-WRITE.

'All' ?? Ah well, once step forward, one step back again. Sometimes a rewrite
is <required> and sometimes it's <desired> and other times it not an issue at all
and the system is <converted>. This last one happens far more than you seem to
be aware.

|| What happen when a totally NEW and GROUND BREAKING
|| hardware comes out? NOW YOU ARE really screwed

For sure. Sort of. The old does tend to suffer when the new comes along.
Look what the telephone did to letter writing. And TV to the cinema (and
cinema to the stage). Look what OOP has done to all those old languages.
There's lot's of old still hanging around, of course.

|| and that so called FUTURE saving are all FOR NOTHING.......

I'm not sure what this bit means.

|| Tah Dah!!!
|| ..that's the FACTS and HISTORY of an ever changing programming world
|| of code......RE-WRITE, RE-WRITE even when they SHOUT, RE-USE,
|| RE-USE........BUT GUESS what???
||
|| NOTHING GETS RE-USED...so why try when everything changes anyway?

I think perhaps you don't realise that even a TOTAL RE-WRITE still gets to
re-use. A total re-write doesn't necessarily mean start with a blank slate. It means
start with a fresh <look>, sure, and then incorporate as much of the old as is useful.
This might be nothing in some cases. In others it might be a lot. It's all a bit of a grey
area really. The .NET Framework is totally new? No. There are ideas from all over
the computing world and the Windows API is still underneath. New initiative - but
with as much re-use as possible.

|| OOP was made to be flexible and extensible because of the statement,
|| "The only thing we can be sure of is change."

Sounds fair. A bit marketing-speak, perhaps.

|| Well, GUESS, what else changes? The languages and technology itself!!!
|| DUHHHHHH!!!!!!

Ok. That's a given. I'm not sure why it surprises you.

|| SO there you go, even that OOP model is OUT THE DOOR cause it's not
|| compatible with the new hardware OR the new language.........

But this doesn't follow. It seems to me that these new languages incorporate
OOP not the other way round. and the hardware isn't an issue what with the
tendency to interpose abstraction layers.

Regards,
Fergus

--
(Please ignore this - there's a feud going on)
==================================================
Quote of the day
Herfried:
I don't need/want human interaction.
==================================================

 

[Empire City]

Hey nospam dude,

Just Look at FM Stock and Duwarmish...those sample sites are HORRID, a mix
of this and that..it's no wonder why projects fail.

FM Stock is a bit old and uses a 3-tier interface. It had to use all that
COM, etc. stuff. I would go with the Duwarmish for a pure .NET example.fec

However under no circumstances whatsoever should you use OO multi-tier
design. I don't think you are ready for that level of complexity. Please
don't think that I'm being facetious or that this is a put-down. It's not
because I went through the same thing when I started with C#. I tried using
the Duwamish sample to figure out DataSets, DataBinding, DataReaders,
DataAdapters, etc. I never got it, but was impressed by the strategic
thinking of that sample. However, I created by hand a windows form for the
old stand by customer add/change function. With only a save and exit button,
and in the key field (a simple string) leave method I did everything hard
coded using no classes whatsoever (well except for setting
theConnectionString). It was a great learning exercise. Also for smaller
applications I could somewhat see your point of having all your code right
in front of you. Evolution not revolution, even of your hard coded
everything to whatever when required.

I think if you continue programming, I would bet you a cup of coffee that in
5 or 10 years you will look back at your overall K.I.S.S principle and
realize it may have been workable for you at the time but that OO multi-tier
(or whatever comes after that) is the way to go in most instances if you are
going for quality on anything bigger than a very small application. In fact
your K.I.S.S principle is basically what a good design pattern is all about.

Have a nice day!

 

[Iguana]

It seems to me the problem is the "one method fits all" paradigm. OO is
fine for somethings, overkill for others.
The problem is the "so called experts" try to use OO for everything and/or
carry it to the nth degree.

There's more to designing and implementing systems than just "following the
book". That's what experience buys
ya.


Iguana

 

[William Ryan]

Once again, are we talking about OOP or ASP.NET?

Blah, blah, blah.....

It's been almost 2.5 years since .NET came out, yet your sites, DevBiz.com
is still asp.

Let someone know if you actually bought something ON your PDA. I know
people BUY PDA's but to have a
n-Tier architecture so that you can have different presentation tier is
POINTLESS. Let me know when you actually had someone buy something on their
PDA, otherwise, n-Tier's benefits are VAPOR WARE.




OOP is COMPLEX, PERIOD. It's a unecessary abstraction at the cost of
simplicity and reliability



The FLEXIBILITY of N-TIER NEVER PAYS FOR ITSELF. CASE in POINT.

All that BUSINESS OOP LOGIC YOUR CEO used to WRITE the DevBiz.com site.....
Guess, what? once you port that thing over the ASP.NET, your have to use
InterOp = SLOW and 2 code bases.

THESE are the FACTS...each new technology, OR NEXT big THING has been a
TOTAL RE-WRITE.

FROM BASIC to VB to VB6 to VB.NET
HTML, to ASP, to ASP.NET

Stuff written for DOS or Win95 can't really be used productively on Win2k or
XP.

YOU have NEVER used this FLEXIBILITY....

Just Look at FM Stock and Duwarmish...those sample sites are HORRID, a mix
of this and that..it's no wonder why projects fail.

i

2-Tier, straight pages using code behind = K.I.S.S.

The logic is in the Code Behind pages just like it was designed to be. NOT
in modules that have to be called again by the code behind page anyway.




via everyone get going Excel, definintion via

 

[Cor]

Hi William,

My advice take no time to this, I did not read this thread, but there is
someone who post and calls (called) himself "Tierscheisse" Herfried was very
angry. (And there was more, but that is not important anymore).

When I see some of the messages, which I did try to read in this thread, I
have to think on that again..

Cor

 

[Niall]

I have worked out the identity of the Masked Moron - it's Steve Gibson of
GRC, come to save the day!

 

[Muscha]

I have worked out the identity of the Masked Moron - it's Steve Gibson of

GRC, come to save the day!

Is this true? Yes? More importantly how?

/m

 

[Guest]

Why not blame it on the tools?

Throughout the history of computers, each NEW language points out the
problems of the previous language anyway.

Java advertises how crappy C++ is
C# advertises how crappy C++ and Java is
VB.NET advertise how crappy VB6 is
VB6 advertised how crappy Pascal was
Managed Code advertises how crappy UnManaged Code is.
C advertises how crappy Assembly Language is.
Assembly Language advertises how crappy Machine Code is.


Tools can blame other Tools for their shortcomings....

Just remember, it was,

*PEOPLE who created everyone of these LANGUAGES.*


People can blame the language cause PEOPLE created those languages in the
first place!


Oh, well, another widely held misconception easily blown away
....maybe I should start a blog

 

[Klaus H. Probst]

That's nice, but blaming the tools for the stupidity of the user is not
exactly insightful. I can point to projects implemented with just about any
technology (when said technology was "the thing to do") that failed
miserably because the people implementing it had no clue whatsoever as to
what they were doing. And of course there's always those projects that were
actually carried through. Next time, post a link to one of those as well, k?

From Ada to COBOL to VB to Java and .NET - Ooops, we screwed up! Let's blame
it on the tools! It's so much more convenient!

*chuckle*