Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for Web? Why

[Guest]

JUDGEMENT DAY FOR OOP COMPLEXITY

KEY WORD OF THE DAY.....UNSUSTAINABLE

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143671
.....UNSUSTAINABLE
The computer industry is overcharging customers to an unsustainable and
unacceptable extent, according to Sun Microsystems' chief executive Scott
McNealy (pictured).
Giving the opening keynote at the Sun Network Conference in San Francisco,
he said: "The world is getting disenchanted with our industry. We are
overcharging by at least 10 times."


http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,39116406,00.htm
.....CARS DON'T NEED SERVICING EACH WEEK
"The world has to be getting a little disappointed in our industry," McNealy
said on Tuesday, addressing attendees of the company's SunNetwork
conference. "We are overcharging in our industry by an order of magnitude,"
or by up to 10 times, he said. "That cost...is going to come out of our
industry in the next five to 10 years."

McNealy, with his fondness for car metaphors, had one ready for the
occasion. If cars were as complicated and custom-built as today's computing
gear, there would be vastly more mechanics, car painters, tow truck drivers,
car designers and other support workers needed to deal with the chaos and
unpredictability, he said.


http://www.business-standard.com/ice/story.asp?Menu=119&story=22786
......IT FIRMS WILL BE MUCH SMALLER
Sun Microsystems Chief Executive Scott McNealy chided thousands of gearheads
gathered at OracleWorld for overengineering their companies' computer
systems.
"Everyone is building their own jalopies," McNealy said during a keynote
speech at the Oracle customer conference.

McNealy said that in his view the information technology industry is slowly
evolving away from a model in which every company assembles a unique data
center with components from 80 different suppliers.
In the future, he predicted, most companies will buy preassembled, standard
computer systems or rent them, and IT departments will be much smaller.

.....WAY TOO COMPLEX
"Our industry is way too complex," he said. "A lot of employees are
delivering features that we want to build into products. Hence, (IT) is way
too expensive."

 

[Guest]

WHERE IS THE URL? SO I CAN BUY SOMETHING OFF MY PDA....PLEASE.....


comments inline below.....

ha ha ha ha ha

Hmmm... I know for a fact that UCLA healthcare is moving to OOP/J2EE on
many of its projects... Including the latest mandate from the federal
government about HIPA. But on the otherhand, I don't see too many projects
being developed from COBOL compared to OOP technology.

How long has HIPA been out? Huhhhh?????
How long has it taken this SO-CALLED UCLA Healthcare to move to OOP/J2EE?

NEVERTHELESS, is this Healthcare plan MISSION CRITICAL.......NO IT'S NOT.

AND even it was, Has it BEEN PROVEN in a MISSION CRITICAL situations.......?

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TELL ME WHEN IT'S OPERATIONAL, BECAUSE ALL I NEED TO
READ IS THE NEWS, that THIS so and so Hospital KILLED A PATIENT BECAUSE OF A
TECHNICAL GLITCH IN SOFTWARE

Well, I haven't seen a class action suit on OOP technology killing patients
either, have you?


Blah!!! It does matter specially for people who are always in meetings and
on the go... But, excuse me for asking the question... base on the people
you meet everyday, do you see people carrying "big" screens with them??? I
see more people with PDA's out on the street than them operating a notebook
while walking down the street!!!

I GUESS IN THESE MEETINGS THEY ARE GOING TO BUY SOMETHING USING THEIR PDA AS
WELL, RIGHT?

I never said that. In fact two systems I've worked on before that failed
was the early versions of Great Plains and Timberland. Now those are really
hard core 2-Tier design, the way I see it... And trust me, it misserably
failed with Sony.


No, I didn't... It was the mentality of the people that killed the project
before it even started!!! And I have seen that happen in many projects...
Even on the same arena... check out Tricon... The project was going to be
successful, but management would change minds and not commit to the project.

I've seen it happen... they rely on 2-Tier technology and when the project
becomes out of hand, they start looking for other solutions!!! Most of the
time, they hire software architects that do N-Tier design!!! Afterthat,
everything becomes hunkydory... 2-Tier... hmmm... seen it failed so many
times... That's why I would get the job and fix it. I wouldn't be surprise
if your boss fires you and hires me instead!!!


Yes, you can do just that, dummy... but, it all depends on how big the
change is... If I asked you to change the colors on your page, you'd
probably rewrite the whole program because the logic for selecting the color
is built into the code!!! In OOP, this should be a quick change... Now, if
I told you... we're abandoning the database server and moving the a newer
one... Hmmm, for sure, you're SCREWED!!! and we only change a third of our
program... NOT EVERYTHING!!!
system

NO... THEY PROBABLY PICKED YOUR PROGRAM AND FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS NOT
FLEXIBLE ENOUGH!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20030 mention

HEY, DUMMY... THE GUY WHO PULLED THE PLUG WERE THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE
PROBABLY THE CEO WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING OR ANY BETTER!!! And it was
probably because the programmers of LEGACY systems designed on 2-Tier
architecture felt they would be useless once the system is finished... so,
they killed it while it was still an infant. I've seen that happen
specially with Tricon... now that's an experience I can tell!!! How about
you, have you worked on Back-of-House systems??? I doubt it... Most of the
time, the success of a system is dependent on how the entire company
perceives its usefulness...

HA HA HA HA........SHAREHOLDERS DON'T HAVE 1 to 2 YEARS for the OOP NITWITS
NAZIES TO GET THE SYSTEM RUNNING

 

[nhoel]

WHAT DID YOU BUY ON YOUR PDA????

GIVE US THE URL SO THAT WE CAN BUY IT ALSO........

ARE YOU AN IDIOT FOR REAL??? DOES THE ITEM HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE
BUSINESS RULES THAT WAS PROGRAMMED ON THE WEBSITE. THE POINT IS, I WAS ABLE
TO MAKE A TRANSACTION ON MY PDA!!!

PROVE IT....lots of Hospitals use COBOL.....after all these YEARS.....

Hmmm... I know for a fact that UCLA healthcare is moving to OOP/J2EE on
many of its projects... Including the latest mandate from the federal
government about HIPA. But on the otherhand, I don't see too many projects
being developed from COBOL compared to OOP technology.

I don't see a class action suit on COBOL killing patients, do YOU???

Well, I haven't seen a class action suit on OOP technology killing patients
either, have you?

carries

21", 19", 17", 14" or 12"

DOESN"T MATTER.....it's NO WHERE near 2" like a PDA.......

Blah!!! It does matter specially for people who are always in meetings and
on the go... But, excuse me for asking the question... base on the people
you meet everyday, do you see people carrying "big" screens with them??? I
see more people with PDA's out on the street than them operating a notebook
while walking down the street!!!

It's cause they haven't figured it out yet..... BUT JUST REMEMBER what YOU
SAID......all these SYSTEM are BUILT USING OOP.......

I never said that. In fact two systems I've worked on before that failed
was the early versions of Great Plains and Timberland. Now those are really
hard core 2-Tier design, the way I see it... And trust me, it misserably
failed with Sony.

SO, THERE....YOUR OOP has REAPED what IT SOED.....

No, I didn't... It was the mentality of the people that killed the project
before it even started!!! And I have seen that happen in many projects...
Even on the same arena... check out Tricon... The project was going to be
successful, but management would change minds and not commit to the project.

OH..NO NO NO NO NO....

YOU SAID ALL BIG COMPANIES ARE USING OOP.....and that's TRUE......

SO,....THERE....that's WHAT YOU GOT IN RETURN.....FAILURE

PERIOD.......

I've seen it happen... they rely on 2-Tier technology and when the project
becomes out of hand, they start looking for other solutions!!! Most of the
time, they hire software architects that do N-Tier design!!! Afterthat,
everything becomes hunkydory... 2-Tier... hmmm... seen it failed so many
times... That's why I would get the job and fix it. I wouldn't be surprise
if your boss fires you and hires me instead!!!

anyway, that's not


WAIT JUST A SECOND HERE....I THOUGH OOP WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FLEXIBLE,
EXTENDABLE....
2-seconds just to make a change.....

Yes, you can do just that, dummy... but, it all depends on how big the
change is... If I asked you to change the colors on your page, you'd
probably rewrite the whole program because the logic for selecting the color
is built into the code!!! In OOP, this should be a quick change... Now, if
I told you... we're abandoning the database server and moving the a newer
one... Hmmm, for sure, you're SCREWED!!! and we only change a third of our
program... NOT EVERYTHING!!!

If they wanted something like that,

YES,,,THEY PICKED n-Tier, OOP
...supposedly the CUTTING EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECURE

NO... THEY PROBABLY PICKED YOUR PROGRAM AND FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS NOT
FLEXIBLE ENOUGH!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20030


YES.....BUT YOU KNOW SOME OOP HEAD HONCHO, MCSD, MVP, 3-letters, 3-letters,
3-letters architect

was in CHARGE....

HEY, DUMMY... THE GUY WHO PULLED THE PLUG WERE THE SHAREHOLDERS AND THE
PROBABLY THE CEO WHO DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING OR ANY BETTER!!! And it was
probably because the programmers of LEGACY systems designed on 2-Tier
architecture felt they would be useless once the system is finished... so,
they killed it while it was still an infant. I've seen that happen
specially with Tricon... now that's an experience I can tell!!! How about
you, have you worked on Back-of-House systems??? I doubt it... Most of the
time, the success of a system is dependent on how the entire company
perceives its usefulness...

in


B.S.......
It's will take your n-Tier developer 3 -6 month just to understand a system
that will have changed after he's learned the model...

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG... We've hired new developers here at work and within
two weeks, they're turning up new releases and bug fixes... Were have you
been??? Or what have you been drinking to make this claim?

http://www.fawcette.com/javapro/2003_10/magazine/columns/objectenterprise/de



YOU HAVE A POINT????

......TELL IT TO THOSE CIO's WHO's PROJECTS ARE SCREWED UP FROM YOUR SO
CALLED OOP EXPERTS THEY HIRED THAT HAVE MILE LONG RESUMES AND 3 and 4 letter
certifications

THE PROJECT WAS SCREWED UP AND NEEDED OOP TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THEY'VE FIGURED
OUT, COBOL WOULD NOT CUT IT!!! JUST LOOK AT THE PROJECTS, THEY DON'T DO NEW
COBOL PROJECTS, THEY END UP MAINTAINING IT UNTIL A NEW OOP/N-TIER
ARCHITECTURE REPLACES IT. THAT MEANS, YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

REFUSE OOP......IT"S NOT REFUSE OOP....IT"S REFUSE UNECESSARY COMPLEXITY

THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE REALLY SCREWED UP... OOP SIMPLIFIED SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT... AND I THINK, YOU'RE IN BIG TROUBLE!!!

idiot.


YOU CAN"T FIND ANYONE WHO KNOWS YOUR OOP LUNACY and THEN AFTER THAT YOU
CAN"T EVEN TRAIN SOMEONE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

DUFUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HEY BLOCKHEAD... THERE ARE A LOT OF OOP DEVELOPERS OUT THERE (REMNANTS OR
THE DOT COM ERA). WE HIRE A LOT OF THEM HERE AT WORK AND WE DON'T EVEN NEED
TO TRAIN THEM. HOWEVER, FOR YOUR CASE... I THINK, YOU'RE SOUR-GRAPING
BECAUSE A LOT OF COMPANIES ARE REFUSING TO HIRE AN OUT-DATED POOR-SKILLSET
PERSON LIKE YOU.

ME!!!......YOU!!!!....LOOK AT McDONALD's......THAT's OOP and THAT's
ACHIEVING NOTHING.....




Where is the URL so I can use that PDA.......?

I'm starting to think, you don't even have a PDA!!! How hard is ebay???
Well, I don't know... maybe you should learn your "ABC's" first.

Quick...think of some B.S. where I can't check.....

You can't check coz you're dumb!!!

 

[ssoss]

How about we just farm out production of standardized components from
foreign agents who are priced much more "competitively" because the employ
slave labor out of desperation, and further retard the industry by peddling
lots of substandard wares. While we're at it we can sell NASA to McDonalds,
cause space travel is really way too complicated. Just imagine, the
McSatellite. Everyone can have their own!

 

[ssoss]

How about we just farm out production of standardized components from
foreign agents who are priced much more "competitively" because the employ
slave labor out of desperation, and further retard the industry by peddling
lots of substandard wares. While we're at it we can sell NASA to McDonalds,
cause space travel is really way too complicated. Just imagine, the
McSatellite. Everyone can own one! Maybe I can launch my own from my back
yard... probably get much better service then my lousy cel phone!

Nothing makes me smile like broad overstated generalizations...

 

[William Ryan]

Wow, McNeely is running his mouth again. Does he ever shut up?

 

[Daniel O'Connell]

Wow, McNeely is running his mouth again. Does he ever shut up?

I don't think so...I enjoy reading his overpricing rants however...you ever
look at buying a sparc system?

 

[William Ryan]

Yes, they're certainly affordable. There's some new thing I saw yesterday
where Sun and Oracle are going to run MS out of business with Linux based
desktop and licenses that go for like $50.00 . You get StarOffice and all
sorts of other stuff.

There are few thing more humorous than watching grown billionaires fuss
about each other.

 

[Daniel O'Connell]

Yes, they're certainly affordable. There's some new thing I saw yesterday
where Sun and Oracle are going to run MS out of business with Linux based
desktop and licenses that go for like $50.00 . You get StarOffice and all
sorts of other stuff.

Heh, I read those too now and then.
I actually honestly gave OpenOffice a try...had an old machine that I wanted
a simple word processor on. It turned out to be slower than MS Office(didn't
believe that was possible), for the features I was using it was a bit bigger
too, missing some features I wanted, and a bad GUI to boot. Not to mention
my various office productivity helper apps wouldn't work with it. (Which, as
an offside) brings me to another rant aimed at MS. Due to COM design it
would be impossible, but it would have been of great use if Word, Excel, etc
provided a set of common IWordProcessor, ISpreadSheet interfaces that all
office applications could use from all vendors. I hate having to support 2
object models simply to pump in some random text into a document or a
spreadsheet cell. Ah well...dreams of actual usability never come true, .
I am not sure preciesly why the GUI's are so badly designed as that is
really what needs to be done to get the market. I know there are smart,
dedicated people working on the UI for the various pieces of OS softawre,
but they produce windows 95 era usability with an XP era resource usage.
No common user I know would suffer linux\StarOffice interfaces for very
long. If they put in some HEAVY work, and caught up with XP or OS X by
Longhorn they may have a chance, if the Longhorn UI falls flat.
Although, it'd be nice to see MS release a patch for xp with some of those
new Longhorn goodies that probably won't exist in the final, , but again,
dreams.

There are few thing more humorous than watching grown billionaires fuss
about each other.

Watching probably insane trolls spout off without showing any comprehension
is my favorite...thats why I like the newsgroups,

 

[Guest]

The alternative it to realize the word,

"UNSUSTAINABLE" means companies, including Fortune 500 companies can't
afford to revamp their entire IT investment year in and year out.

Look at all the bugs in the system......

60% of the CIO's in a recent conference said that IT can do a lot more for
customer satisfaction.

The clue is look at the architecture of the entire system.....

OOP and n-Tier.......have these architectures been OVERLY USED,
MIS-USED......??????

 

[William Ryan]

So what is your alternative? The whole car analogy thing is kuck in many
regards because of budgets, requirements etc. The auto industry is also
much more mature as well, and much of what loud mouth McNeely says is much
more a function of a young industry.

 

[William Stacey]

Corel with Wordperfect was going to do the same thing to Office.
Didn't they try to make a java/web version of WordPerfect Office that almost
put them out of business? Anyway, for linux to make real inroads on the
desktop, I think the UI needs to get at least as good as Mac OS X or w2k and
*if they can get there (in maybe five+ years), then they will have to
compete with both apple and MS (which now has had five more year of dev into
their products.) To get that good, I think one company would need to focus
on the UI and spend some major $. And then why would that company (eg
apple) port their UI over to different venders linux os? Open'ness is good
to an extent, but it costs huge to get things done especially across
multiple venders and get buy in.

 

[Guest]

2-Tier simplicity that uses Global Search and Replace when needed.

..NET and ASP.NET with Code Behind allows for that.

There are simple tools that programmer don't know how to take advantage of
because there are just too arrogant or in LOVE with OOP.....

K.I.S.S. is more important that OOP

 

[William Ryan]

You don't mention the alternative, you simply restate the problem. Again I
ask, what is the alternative? 1 Tier procedural code? What architecture is
the alternative?

 

[nhoel]

WHERE IS THE URL? SO I CAN BUY SOMETHING OFF MY PDA....PLEASE.....

Can you spell, "EBAY?" just add the "http://www." before it and the "com"
after it... since it looks like you can't find it. Oh, wait... that's
because you're stupid. I can't expect much from you anyway.

comments inline below.....

ha ha ha ha ha






How long has HIPA been out? Huhhhh?????

It's been out for quite a while... but because they figured out that the
2-Tier systems would not cut it, they decided to implement systems (in
OOP/N-Tier) to do the new requirements...

How long has it taken this SO-CALLED UCLA Healthcare to move to OOP/J2EE?

You might be surprised... in less than a half a year, an entire system was
implemented in OOP/J2EE. In some project's I've heard, a system was rolled
out in less than 3 months...

NEVERTHELESS, is this Healthcare plan MISSION CRITICAL.......NO IT'S NOT.

What do you consider as mission critical... if you meant the devices that
run the person's heart monitor... you're in deep trouble coz, those are
probably single or 2-tier systems.... They're not OOP!!!

AND even it was, Has it BEEN PROVEN in a MISSION CRITICAL situations.......?

Like I said, other than a surgical knife and a pair of gloves, what else is
mission critical in a healthcare system? The only other mission critical
"enterprise" web base system is when admitting patients so they can bill
them later anyway? BLOCKHEAD!!!

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TELL ME WHEN IT'S OPERATIONAL, BECAUSE ALL I NEED TO
READ IS THE NEWS, that THIS so and so Hospital KILLED A PATIENT BECAUSE OF A
TECHNICAL GLITCH IN SOFTWARE

Go ahead... where can you say that UCLA failed to implement an OOP/N-TIER
system?

I GUESS IN THESE MEETINGS THEY ARE GOING TO BUY SOMETHING USING THEIR PDA AS
WELL, RIGHT?

Well, only if one of the invitees is you... you'd probably pay more
attention to what you can buy from the net than pay attention while the
others discuss the new "business" rules because... you've figured out ahead
of time, it's not possible with your 2-Tier design!!!

as Now,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&ncid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20030


HA HA HA HA........SHAREHOLDERS DON'T HAVE 1 to 2 YEARS for the OOP NITWITS
NAZIES TO GET THE SYSTEM RUNNING

Well, they definitely don't have 3 years for ignorant programmers like you
to get a system up and running!!!

 

[nhoel]

HEY, IT'S YOUR FRIEND HERE...

You know... it's funny how you keep on promoting the 2-Tier "simplicity"
but you totally miss the fact in the article that they gripe on spending too
much money on buying new software. Developing a system in 2-Tier does not
save the company from "purchasing" a new version or reducing its staff to
patch a bug fix. In many cases, 2-Tier design had been harder for them
because of all the customization they have to do before applying the fix!!!
(And just to point out to you, 2-Tier never got rid of "bugs" either.) Not
to mention, they're programmers have to debug and trace through your 2-Tier
code just to customize the program for their needs. And they're not even
sure where to start. That's assuming you let them have your "so called"
code behind." How about proving to the world (with a real situation from
your work background) that 2-Tier is indeed easy to maintain. Or is 2-Tier
really just your means to have job security and keep the client in your
mercy because there is no way they can modify the system to fit some of
their new needs? No proprietary code for them means, no change and it means
they're S.O.L. This whole K.I.S.S. (last "S" really applies to you) is over
hyped in your viewpoint of a 2-Tier system.

Time and time again... bugs have always been attributed to the "CUT" and
"PASTE" style of developers who cannot think of simpler ways to fix
something. In all of the problems many companies face, it's not the
"architecture" that was a problem for them but rather the mentality of CEO's
and CIO's trying to save a few bucks here and there ending in spending even
more just because the product does not fit their business needs. How you
are going to understand that... I just don't know. Whether you pick SUN,
IBM, Microsoft or whatever, no one system will satisfy your entire business
needs. That is why many of these companies have exposed interfaces
(courtesy of OOP/N-Tier) so you can customize some of their features. And
N-Tier allows many companies to devote their own resources to developing new
systems (specially if the vendor does not have that module) without writing
a new framework. 2-Tier will never come up to that level, that's why many
vendors have abandoned that architecture. Try getting that through your
thick skull!!!

It is a good example comparing a car to a software... coz the whole idea of
it really resembles software developement. You purchase a Ford which breaks
down a lot compared to other cars. This would look very much like the
software McNealy would point out. I had a Ford once, and it kept on
breaking down on me. And it almost seemed like every week, I had to change
something in it. After purchasing a Honda (compare it to a more reliable
software), I only had to maintain it every 1500 miles by changing the oil.
The downside to the Honda is it was more expensive than a Ford. Put this to
the analogy of better and "it will do" software. You tried to be cheap and
didn't purchase the system that will really fit your needs. You end up with
more customizations or buy support from the vendor. But if you purchase the
more expensive software that had many of the modules you needed, your
customization costs will be lower.

But cost, is not the only "problem" plaguing many of this companies when
buying software that truly fits "most" of their needs. Sometimes, you have
to replace the CIO or the CEO to get the company back on track when it comes
to the company's software needs. In many cases, they have to replace "old"
mentality programmers too who refuse to learn better architecture like
3-Tier and OOP. *HINT*

 

[Guest]

Can you spell, "EBAY?" just add the "http://www." before it and the "com"
after it... since it looks like you can't find it. Oh, wait... that's
because you're stupid. I can't expect much from you anyway.

OK, a simple URL like http://www.ebay.com
Hmmm, sounds like the same interface like my web browser on my desktop....so
why do I need a different presentation tier then....when not have a stripped
down page.....


BUT, ANYWAY,.....JUST WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU BUY?
HOW MUCH DID IT COST YOU?

WHAT DOES THE PAGE LOOK LIKE in your PDA?
I am PRETTY SURE DOING eBAY RESEARCH ON YOUR PDA is FINE AND DANDY

......AND YOU CAN EVEN LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF WHAT YOU ARE BUYING THEN?
RIGHT???


WHERE IS THE URL???????????????

COME ON, Don't tell the URL is just http://www.ebay.com/ as YOU DIDN'T BID
on EVERY SINGLE AUCTION WITH YOUR PDA DID YOU?

BE SPECIFIC......WHAT ITEM DID YOU BUY?

EXACT URL, PLEASEEEEEEEE...................

It's been out for quite a while... but because they figured out that the
2-Tier systems would not cut it, they decided to implement systems (in
OOP/N-Tier) to do the new requirements...

DIDN'T CUT IT??????
........2-Tier, COBOL has been doing the JOB for as Long as COBOL has been in
existence.

AND they DIDN'T HAVE 65,000 BUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOP/J2EE?

You might be surprised... in less than a half a year, an entire system was
implemented in OOP/J2EE. In some project's I've heard, a system was rolled
out in less than 3 months...

RIGHT..........
HALF A YEAR......IF that's TRUE, why do CRM's implementations FAIL THEN?

And WHY does SAP take forever????

If they were so quick with a Medical system, why can't they do these others,
FAR MORE SIMPLE and LESS mission critical in the same amount of TIME.....

What do you consider as mission critical... if you meant the devices that
run the person's heart monitor... you're in deep trouble coz, those are
probably single or 2-tier systems.... They're not OOP!!!


Like I said, other than a surgical knife and a pair of gloves, what else is
mission critical in a healthcare system? The only other mission critical
"enterprise" web base system is when admitting patients so they can bill
them later anyway? BLOCKHEAD!!!
OF

Go ahead... where can you say that UCLA failed to implement an OOP/N-TIER
system?

Where can you say UCLA Healthcare even has this system?

 

[Guest]

COMMENTS INLINE BELOW

HEY, IT'S YOUR FRIEND HERE...

You know... it's funny how you keep on promoting the 2-Tier "simplicity"
but you totally miss the fact in the article that they gripe on spending too
much money on buying new software. Developing a system in 2-Tier does not
save the company from "purchasing" a new version or reducing its staff to
patch a bug fix.

Don't forget they have a LOT less BUGS to begin with.

In many cases, 2-Tier design had been harder for them
because of all the customization they have to do before applying the

fix!!!

PROVE IT!!!!!!!! WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS and INDEPENDENT STUDIES?
LAST TIME I checked COBOL has done a pretty good job for the last 30+
years....
and they didn't have 65,000 bugs either.....

(And just to point out to you, 2-Tier never got rid of "bugs" either.) Not
to mention, they're programmers have to debug and trace through your 2-Tier
code just to customize the program for their needs. And they're not even
sure where to start.

OH YES, THEY DO KNOW WHERE TO START in a 2 Tier system...it's SO simple they
can easily figure it out as well.

That's assuming you let them have your "so called"

code behind." How about proving to the world (with a real situation from
your work background) that 2-Tier is indeed easy to maintain. Or is 2-Tier
really just your means to have job security and keep the client in your
mercy because there is no way they can modify the system to fit some of
their new needs? No proprietary code for them means, no change and it means
they're S.O.L. This whole K.I.S.S. (last "S" really applies to you) is over
hyped in your viewpoint of a 2-Tier system.

THIS IS THE BIG PROBLEM with you OOP idiots......K.I.S.S. is not
overhyped...it's the TRUTH...proven not only in 2-Tier but in everything
technical or non-technical....

Time and time again... bugs have always been attributed to the "CUT" and
"PASTE" style of developers who cannot think of simpler ways to fix
something.

AGAIN, PROVE WHERE CUT AND PASTE has been attributed to bugs....
PROVE IT....show the STUDY, example..and see the OOP also does CUT AND
PASTE.
JUST where do you think a lot of the code comes from in the first place?

developers who cannot think of simpler ways to fix
something.

HA HA HA HA HA....
.........developers who cannot think of "simplier ways" of fixing
something....
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






In all of the problems many companies face, it's not the

"architecture" that was a problem for them but rather the mentality of CEO's
and CIO's trying to save a few bucks here and there ending in spending even
more just because the product does not fit their business needs. How you
are going to understand that... I just don't know. Whether you pick SUN,
IBM, Microsoft or whatever, no one system will satisfy your entire business
needs. That is why many of these companies have exposed interfaces
(courtesy of OOP/N-Tier) so you can customize some of their features. And
N-Tier allows many companies to devote their own resources to developing new
systems (specially if the vendor does not have that module) without writing
a new framework. 2-Tier will never come up to that level, that's why many
vendors have abandoned that architecture.

Let's See McDonald's IT fiasco....do know want that URL again????

Try getting that through your
thick skull!!!

How about getting that McDonald's URL into your thick skull??????
DO you have a PROBLEM with the FAILURES of OOP?
HOW ABOUT A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE WHO CAN EASILY DEFEAT YOU and HAS the
DOCUMENTATION AND REAL LIFE EXAMPLES TO PROVE IT TO YOU....

It is a good example comparing a car to a software... coz the whole idea of
it really resembles software developement. You purchase a Ford which breaks
down a lot compared to other cars. This would look very much like the
software McNealy would point out. I had a Ford once, and it kept on
breaking down on me. And it almost seemed like every week, I had to change
something in it. After purchasing a Honda (compare it to a more reliable
software), I only had to maintain it every 1500 miles by changing the oil.
The downside to the Honda is it was more expensive than a Ford. Put this to
the analogy of better and "it will do" software. You tried to be cheap and
didn't purchase the system that will really fit your needs. You end up with
more customizations or buy support from the vendor. But if you purchase the
more expensive software that had many of the modules you needed, your
customization costs will be lower.

For you to compare OOP and software to different models of cars, like Ford
and Honda, is totally off base.

You need to compare OOP to Communism...that where a huge majority of the
world population gave into some "short sighted" idea that if all the objects
worked together, everything would be great...or a single object model. As
you already know with OOP has fooled a lot of programmers just like
Communism did by talking about HOW GREAT things would be ...just like OOP
does..."single change", 2-second change, able to do whatever they need with
a simple change of code.

I want to add that OOP and n-Tier TRUMPETS that this allows them to have
multiple developer working on the same project...B.S...untrue.....there is
one chief architect..and all the important code is control and MODIFIED by
him....thus...all the other developers are going to adjust to him BECAUSE he
got most of the heavily access code to begin with......

SOUNDS LIKE all the PROMISES of COMMUNISM doesn't it??????

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE for MUAHHH (ME) TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER FIRST HAND OOP
EXAMPLE???

SCARED?????? YOU SHOULD BE!!!! YOU SAW ALL THOSE OTHER URLs!!!!!
YOU HAVE ZIPPO!!!!!!!

How easy it is to defeat you.
WHERE ARE THE AUTHORS, GURUS, MVP'S, MICROSOFT PEOPLE when YOU need THEM as
YOU DO need THEM!!!!!


ANSWER THE RIDDLE......

FULLY OOP, __________, is a FULL PLATE OF PROBLEMS

 

[Guest]

YOU SHOULD post to this message as the Outlook Express newsreader is
starting to have problems when the thread gets this deep and this
old..hopefully I will see it.

Then again I could repost and continue with a new one....