"James J. Gavan" <jj*****@shaw.c a> wrote in message
news:3F******** *******@shaw.ca ...
"Peter E.C. Dashwood" wrote:
Nope. Disagree strongly. The days of procedural code and the necessity
to maintain it are nearly over. It is very wrong NOW to design systems
around a particular language.
The days of the "Waterfall" and "One Language Wonder" system development
are, thankfully, in rapid decline.
Now don't shilly shally - your new 'audience' might find it enlightening.
"Design systems around a particular language" and "One Language Wonder".
Spell it out simply as percentages :-
- Languages you use on a daily basis - x%
- Languages & Tools you use to produce your Components on a daily basis -
x%
Jimmy
Sorry Jimmy,
I'd like to respond but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Percentages based on what I do personally are of no consequence. Percentages
based on the last commercial installation I managed are of little
consequence either. Today's percentages could vary wildly tomorrow, and
there is no guarantee that a percentage of development true today will
continue to be true indefinitely.
I can say that the results from both above would involve SQL Server, VB,
Perl, Java and COBOL. But so what?
I don't see any "shilly-shally" in my post.
My point was that it is wrong (today) to design systems around the
capabilities of a given procedural language (irrespective of what that
language is...). As for "One Language wonder"... well, that is just an
extension of the same idea. In the past it was possible to get by on one
language. It isn't anymore, yet there are still people who, rather than
simply expand their skill set, cling frantically to the notion that THEIR
language is wonderful and can do ANYTHING better than any other language.
(hence, "One Language Wonder"...)
We SHOULD be designing systems based on Business Functionality, rather than
computer programming languages.
I contend that Component Based Development is a really good way to do this,
and it happens to be the best way to ensure re-use of code (in my opinion)
which is what the topic is about.
Maybe you read more into it than I intended or maybe I just don't understand
what you are driving at.
Pete.