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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
nospam wrote:
<snip>
Whoever added cocaine in your morning tea , i agree did a bad thing. I
assure you he will be punished. Meantime go sleep off and come back later.
 
Look folks, nospam is obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree. That's
obvious not because of his points themselves, but because of the lack of
logic he exhibits in defending them. I recommend not feeding the trolls and
hoping they just go away.

Having said that, I will offer the following opinions:

There are indeed those purists that OO-engineer a project to death. I mean
a simple program to do a simple task does not need 5 layers of inherited
classes. Yes, I know the argument about those programs always seem to end
up needing modifications in the future which are better enabled with an OO
design, but the truth is there really *IS* such a thing as a simple project.
A good analyst should be able to consider all the overall business factors
and cost/benefit issues.

Second, someone made a point along the way about .ini files vs. the
registry. Well, I have been wondering lately about all the fuss about XML
configuration files. VB6 had some very simple-to-use functionality for
reading values from .ini files, which were in turn very easy to maintain and
read with notepad. Yes, I know there are most definitely cases where the
XML file works better, but in most cases it just adds completely unnecessary
complexity. It seems to me this is, as much as anything else, part of a
marketing strategy by Microsoft to position themselves as the leaders in all
things XML.

These points should in no way be construed to support nospam's ridiculous
claims or to be critical of OO or VS.NET in general.


nospam said:
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE
Click to expand...

<blah blah blah>
 
Hi Daniel,

|| I recommend not feeding the trolls and
|| hoping they just go away.
||
|| Having said that, I will offer the following opinions:

ROFL. Yer 'avin' a larf, ma'e.

Regards,
Fergus
 
(from various post in the thread)
K.I.S.S. is the architecture that has proven itself...not OOP / n-Tier which
has more FAR FAR more failures than successes. Oh, but of course, the
elitist OOP few has to blame the programmer for these failures as these
SO-CALLED BOOK AUTHORS have a BOOK that SAYS OOP is the WAY.
Click to expand...
K.I.S.S. has always worked. OOP has a 50/50 gamble at best
Click to expand...
OOP is COMPLEX, PERIOD. It's a unecessary abstraction at the cost of
Click to expand...
simplicity and reliability

Take a look at the view from these points:

If OOP might be only accounting for as few as 1 failure per 1 successes,
what accounts for all those other failures?
After all, those failures are failures regardless of
whether or not OPP caused them.

Why not apply K.I.S.S to the unnecessary abstraction;
there by, coverting it's cost of simplicity and reliability
into a yielding of simplicity and reliability; upon which,
the abstraction will switch
from being unnecessary to being necessary
for meeting one's -- raised -- simplicity and reliability objectives?
After all, considering "K.I.S.S. has always worked", it's a pretty good
gamble.

Bye,
Delbert Glass
 
Because that's like blaming Chevrolet for injuries received while taking a
curve at 80MPH when I don't know how to drive, that's why.
Click to expand...


Or it could be Audi when you are in PARK and then it suddenly accelerates?
Or since computers are in it's infancy, languages are no where near the
quality the Model-T?

Just remember that American car manufacturers in the 1970's made very
unreliable cars. Then FOREIGN competition came along in the name of the
Japanese and showed everybody how to build cars.....Maybe some outsider will
show all programmers how to build software


You are just UPSET that someone took your TOOLS argument and stuck it right
back in your FACE.
You got nothing to say.


HERE IS THIS POST AGAIN....just so you don't FORGET!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
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!
 
I seem to be having an effect then......




Daniel Billingsley said:
Look folks, nospam is obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree. That's
obvious not because of his points themselves, but because of the lack of
logic he exhibits in defending them. I recommend not feeding the trolls and
hoping they just go away.

Having said that, I will offer the following opinions:

There are indeed those purists that OO-engineer a project to death. I mean
a simple program to do a simple task does not need 5 layers of inherited
classes. Yes, I know the argument about those programs always seem to end
up needing modifications in the future which are better enabled with an OO
design, but the truth is there really *IS* such a thing as a simple project.
A good analyst should be able to consider all the overall business factors
and cost/benefit issues.

Second, someone made a point along the way about .ini files vs. the
registry. Well, I have been wondering lately about all the fuss about XML
configuration files. VB6 had some very simple-to-use functionality for
reading values from .ini files, which were in turn very easy to maintain and
read with notepad. Yes, I know there are most definitely cases where the
XML file works better, but in most cases it just adds completely unnecessary
complexity. It seems to me this is, as much as anything else, part of a
marketing strategy by Microsoft to position themselves as the leaders in all
things XML.

These points should in no way be construed to support nospam's ridiculous
claims or to be critical of OO or VS.NET in general.




<blah blah blah>
Click to expand...
 
MORE COMMENTS INLINE BELOW..........



Daniel Billingsley said:
Look folks, nospam is obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree. That's
obvious not because of his points themselves, but because of the lack of
logic he exhibits in defending them. I recommend not feeding the trolls and
hoping they just go away.

Having said that, I will offer the following opinions:

There are indeed those purists that OO-engineer a project to death. I mean
a simple program to do a simple task does not need 5 layers of inherited
classes. Yes, I know the argument about those programs always seem to end
up needing modifications in the future which are better enabled with an OO
design, but the truth is there really *IS* such a thing as a simple project.
A good analyst should be able to consider all the overall business factors
and cost/benefit issues.
Click to expand...


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.....

Systems Architects, programmers, App programmers.......
When is the LAST TIME THEY ARE ABLE TO EVEN LOOK AT THE OVERALL BUSINESS
FACTORS???

Programmers here as well as the Product Managers have the least knowledge or
ability to look a the OVERALL BUSINESS FACTORS.......

I haven't even gotten around to putting the final blows on n-Tier stupidity.


How about the crown jewels of "R.E.-U.S.A.B.I.L.I.TY."?
Wouldn't want me to get started on that one would you?

Maybe you should be more nice to me OR those precious crown jewels might
exposed for FAKES just like I did to OOP and n-Tier......


Seems like each and every tried and true programming argument and philosophy
that is mentioned here seem to crushed.....
 
nospam said:
Why not blame it on the tools?
Click to expand...

Because that's like blaming Chevrolet for injuries received while taking a
curve at 80MPH when I don't know how to drive, that's why.

Unfortunately software doesn't ship with advisory labels. "Do not use if
your OOD or distributed systems design skillz sux" would be a good one,
hmmm?
 
nospam said:
Or it could be Audi [...] American car manufacturers in the 1970's made very
unreliable cars.
Click to expand...

It was an analogy. Don't get carried away now.
Maybe some outsider will
show all programmers how to build software
Click to expand...

Vegans maybe?
You are just UPSET that someone took your TOOLS argument and stuck it right
back in your FACE.
Click to expand...

Not REALLY but if that MAKES you feel BETTER then OKAY.
You got nothing to say.
Click to expand...

And you are a very low quality troll. Linux zealot fanatics on IRC have you
beat by a mile.
 
Why not right here in the NG?

Sorry to shed some light on the AUTHORS, GURUS, MVP's in this world, but
these people are just like the ACADEMIA who publish BOOKS and TEACH COURSES
from business to engineering to computer science...

There is a BIG BIG difference in
(1) Teaching and Writing about something and producing snippets of example
code
and then
(2) actually DOING that something in a day in and day out production
environment.


There is even more of a difference between the two now since technology
changes so much, there is no way that these book authors, mvp, etc can
really get a significant amount of PRODUCTION experience and at the same
time write a book that also has deadlines.


Don't you just hate it when a single person can just say a single thing and
the entire Author/Guru/MVP/MCSD/Speaker bubble of B.S. Authority just blows
up.


FLAME ON!!!!!
 
Back
Top