By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,417 Members | 1,825 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,417 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE
-------------------------
We're Sorry
As many of you know we have recently launched SqlJunkies.com. We have
overhauled our runtime and will be using it on DotNetJunkies.com also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEP, DOTNET JUNKIES REDESIGN....

What happened to the OOP n-Tier stuff? Huhhhhhh??????

Where is that 2-SECOND CHANGE?

WOW...TOTAL REBUILD OF THE ENTIRE ENGINE!!!!

HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????

BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL VAST DESIGN
CHANGES ISN'T IT?

BUT GUESS WHAT? IT DIDN"T HAPPEN.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!

EVEN A MODERATELY COMPLEX site like DotNetJunkies can't do it, why in the
world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be able to
do it??????

Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will get more
features and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN
PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?

WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a BLUEPRINT
(OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL if the KEY
things change all the time?

OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used that
effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use Inheritance,
why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?

Well it's because they want a CLEAN site......INHERITANCE = LEGACY = LOWER
QUALITY = 2 CODE BASES = MORE MAINTENANCE = MORE WORK = MORE TIME WASTED
You OOP n-TIER fanactics have to face up to the fact the the OOP model can't
work in the business world? Where are all those design patterns?

If these guys can't do it, why should you MVP's and OOP FANATICS who don't
even have a web site be able to do it?

BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS
ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING OUT A
PDC SEMINAR....

EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
implementing changes...
Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger e-Commerce
Fortune 500 web site?????
STICK THAT IN YOUR EAR!!!!!!

THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.

IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you are in
COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.

AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND N-TIER
ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get LOW
quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....????

THIS IS THE REST OF THEIR MESSAGE...
------------------------------------------------
We're Sorry
As many of you know we have recently launched SqlJunkies.com. We have
overhauled our runtime and will be using it on DotNetJunkies.com also. With
the new runtime and build we implemented a central users database so you
don't have to sign up on multiple sites. The downfall is that we had to put
a hold on the database currently running DotNetJunkies. What that means to
you is that we can't add new articles, news, events, or even members.
Although, new members can sign up on SqlJunkies Here and when we launch the
new build of DotNetJunkies you will automatically be a member.
Rest assured we have a ton of articles and how to's on hold so when we
launch you'll see a ton of new stuff.

Again we're sorry for any hassle we may be causing and the new build will be
up shortly.


Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
51 Replies


P: n/a
Hello nospam,

How's MOM and POP these days? I trust that they''re doing well and progressing nicely
with their Windows Server, IIS, ASP.NET, MSDN subscription and all that at the usual
bargain prices.

Regards,
Fergus
Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
You make some interesting points but you seem a bit bitter. Did you know
that there are many excellent brands of decaffinated coffee on the market.
The site looks very nice to me.
HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Project management 101. The old time, quality, resources triangle. Subtract
from any item it and you will need to increase one of the others to produce
the same result.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????
They probably could'nt afford it. I recently quoted someone $200,000 for a
project. They were shocked. Then I told them that was just for the design
and specification.
BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL VAST DESIGN CHANGES ISN'T IT?
If written properly. It would seem to me that vast design changes would be
best off with a new design. Did you ever read a book on oo programming?
IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!
I can predict with absolute 100% certainty that I'd always like my system to
be able to make me a cheeseburger.
world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be able to do it??????
Let's say a JP Morgan sees that if they had a nice system that was auditable
they could open a new credit derivitave market and could make 20 million a
day. I think they could afford a good design.
Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will get more features

Is that a trick question?
and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN
PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?
Totally incorrect. Let's just take a simple example of a customer
maintenance screen that you may want to add another field too. Good design
leads to flexibility and understandability wether it's oo design or
whatever. Poor design leads to less flexibility. In a way I have to agree
that the multi-tier design may be seen somewhat as a limitation of MS.
Specifically that you might need to take a logical layer and move it to a
physical layer on a different machine for performance reasons. Maybe a
talking point would be using a Sun/Oracle system instead. No design is
perfect because the world is not perfect (possibly with the exception of my
world, hopefully I'll get to go out rollerblading down to West Broadway
Soho, 41 degrees and sunny in the Big Apple).
WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a BLUEPRINT
(OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL if the KEY things change all the time?
What good is the blueprint of a house if you decide you don't want a
basement anymore.
OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used that
effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use Inheritance, why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?
Sounds like they are overusing Inheritance in a similar way people overuse
web services. Look at the PageBase module of the Duwamish sample for a good
way to use Inheritance.
BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING OUT A PDC SEMINAR....
That seems rather obvious. You might want to figure out a bit of list
etiquette. The purpose of these lists is learning.
EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
implementing changes...
Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger e-Commerce
Fortune 500 web site?????
So should we feel sorry for dotnetnukes?
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.
Yes, you are often stating facts. Does saying period make them more of a
fact.
IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you are in
COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.
Can you propose a different way to go? I'm sure we would all be facinated to
see something. Don't confuse corporate, media and MS brainwashing towards
their particular products with solid scientific design benefits.
AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND N-TIER
ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get LOW
quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....????


Are you saying that programmers in India don't use oo design?

The other response I saw on the C# list basically completly responded to
your posting with three words "Mom and Pop" That seems to be the scenario of
what you are looking at.

You can't expect a young person to be a real world expert on oo design, ie:
been there, done that, now know how to do it again a bit better now. OO
methodology has'nt even been around that long. It's definetly evolving as is
the speed of computer hardware and how software can take advantage of that.
One does not learn to be a master programmer by being a master programmer.
One learns to be a master programmer by first being a junior programmer,
mid-level programmer, senior programmer, junior analyst, mid-level analyst,
senior analyst, junior business analyst, mid-level business analyst, senior
business analyst, ..., project leader, project manager, etc.

I personally don't really find a problem with the attitude of your posting.
It was interesting. I believe in throwing a bit of entertainment and
personality into our world of computer science. But don't put down people
who are trying to help others in what may appear to you to be in their own
limited way.

Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
Forgot to ad that I only read the csharp group if you want to respond.

Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
Forgot to ad that I only read the csharp group if you want to respond.

Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
Forgot to ad that I only read the csharp group if you want to respond.

Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
So, do you only read the csharp group? :>)

PS - nospam is an idiot. He occasionally trolls the groups with his
unifromed, ignorant anti-OOP blatherings.

Bob Lehmann

"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:sU********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Forgot to ad that I only read the csharp group if you want to respond.

Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
Makes you think about the difference between being ignorant and an
ignoramus.

I'm not sure why I only read the CSharp group. I never did VB. Did FoxPro
until a few years ago, before that was a mini/mainframe person. I like C#,
but am still learning it. I guess at some point my learning will get more
into the framework and aspnet side.
PS - nospam is an idiot. He occasionally trolls the groups with his
unifromed, ignorant anti-OOP blatherings.


Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
Hi Empire,

Well, the whole VB group is reading you loud and clear, over!
And all the others listed up there in the newsgroups box.

So, inadvertent or not, Welcome to the world outside csharp. ;-))

Regards,
Fergus
Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
My job isn't going offshore... and heck, I have more work than I can shake a
stick at. You live in the richest country in the world and have
opportunities that many people can only dream of. If people many more
hurdles than you ever had to deal with can convince those paying you, to go
with them instead to the point it disrupts your career, that says a lot more
about you than it does about OOP.

You can't build anything worth selling without embracing objects... you are
insane.

Can you show us some examples of your ultra elite web sites or programs?
How about a press release from some of your stellar products? Or a Resume?

Since I have yet to see you post anything positive or productive, why don't
you and Bailo start a PhP newsgroup somewhere, you can even write it in one
tier with procedural code, and hell, use Comma Separated Text files for your
database.
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ex**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE
-------------------------
We're Sorry
As many of you know we have recently launched SqlJunkies.com. We have
overhauled our runtime and will be using it on DotNetJunkies.com also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEP, DOTNET JUNKIES REDESIGN....

What happened to the OOP n-Tier stuff? Huhhhhhh??????

Where is that 2-SECOND CHANGE?

WOW...TOTAL REBUILD OF THE ENTIRE ENGINE!!!!

HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????

BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL VAST DESIGN CHANGES ISN'T IT?

BUT GUESS WHAT? IT DIDN"T HAPPEN.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!

EVEN A MODERATELY COMPLEX site like DotNetJunkies can't do it, why in the
world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be able to do it??????

Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will get more
features and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?

WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a BLUEPRINT
(OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL if the KEY things change all the time?

OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used that
effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use Inheritance, why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?

Well it's because they want a CLEAN site......INHERITANCE = LEGACY = LOWER
QUALITY = 2 CODE BASES = MORE MAINTENANCE = MORE WORK = MORE TIME WASTED
You OOP n-TIER fanactics have to face up to the fact the the OOP model can't work in the business world? Where are all those design patterns?

If these guys can't do it, why should you MVP's and OOP FANATICS who don't
even have a web site be able to do it?

BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING OUT A PDC SEMINAR....

EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
implementing changes...
Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger e-Commerce
Fortune 500 web site?????
STICK THAT IN YOUR EAR!!!!!!

THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.

IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you are in
COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.

AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND N-TIER
ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get LOW
quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....????

THIS IS THE REST OF THEIR MESSAGE...
------------------------------------------------
We're Sorry
As many of you know we have recently launched SqlJunkies.com. We have
overhauled our runtime and will be using it on DotNetJunkies.com also. With the new runtime and build we implemented a central users database so you
don't have to sign up on multiple sites. The downfall is that we had to put a hold on the database currently running DotNetJunkies. What that means to
you is that we can't add new articles, news, events, or even members.
Although, new members can sign up on SqlJunkies Here and when we launch the new build of DotNetJunkies you will automatically be a member.
Rest assured we have a ton of articles and how to's on hold so when we
launch you'll see a ton of new stuff.

Again we're sorry for any hassle we may be causing and the new build will be up shortly.


Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
Hello Fergus,

Are you calling DotNetJunkies.com web site a MOM and POP operations?
Don't have anything to say do you? If you do, why not say it to
DotNetJunkies.com? They are the one who's site is down for an extended
period of time.

What's a matter? Are you in complete denial?
...................

"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.com> wrote in message
news:Oo**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hello nospam,

How's MOM and POP these days? I trust that they''re doing well and progressing nicely with their Windows Server, IIS, ASP.NET, MSDN subscription and all that at the usual bargain prices.

Regards,
Fergus

Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
Sorry, I was ribbing you about the 3 posts with the same message - note the
smiley. No offense intended.

Bob Lehmann

"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:_P*********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Makes you think about the difference between being ignorant and an
ignoramus.

I'm not sure why I only read the CSharp group. I never did VB. Did FoxPro
until a few years ago, before that was a mini/mainframe person. I like C#,
but am still learning it. I guess at some point my learning will get more
into the framework and aspnet side.
PS - nospam is an idiot. He occasionally trolls the groups with his
unifromed, ignorant anti-OOP blatherings.


Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
COMMENTS INLINE BELOW...............
"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:JQ********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
You make some interesting points but you seem a bit bitter. Did you know
that there are many excellent brands of decaffinated coffee on the market.
The site looks very nice to me.
HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Project management 101. The old time, quality, resources triangle.

Subtract from any item it and you will need to increase one of the others to produce the same result.

BLAH BLAH BLAH....
DotNetJunkies.com are supposed to be the EXPERTS. Plus you don't even have a
web site to even point to.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????


They probably could'nt afford it. I recently quoted someone $200,000 for a
project. They were shocked. Then I told them that was just for the design
and specification.

$200k !!! ha ha ha... no wonder why you don't have a web site.....
I guess it would have take you 2 years to do as well right?
BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL VAST DESIGN
CHANGES ISN'T IT?


If written properly. It would seem to me that vast design changes would be
best off with a new design. Did you ever read a book on oo programming?

DUHHHHHHH......
I guess you could have written it properly then? I don't see your web site,
but then again it takes you 2 years to do one anyway. So, I guess you spend
all your time reading books on OO programming, YET, just can't seem to find
the time to actually produce a web site.

IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!
I can predict with absolute 100% certainty that I'd always like my system

to be able to make me a cheeseburger.
world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be able
to
do it??????
Let's say a JP Morgan sees that if they had a nice system that was

auditable they could open a new credit derivitave market and could make 20 million a
day. I think they could afford a good design.

PERHAPS, BUT you would take 2-3 years to implement it once you finished
reading your OOP book that you love to be brainwashed with.
Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will get
more features

Is that a trick question?
and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN
PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?
Totally incorrect. Let's just take a simple example of a customer
maintenance screen that you may want to add another field too. Good design
leads to flexibility and understandability wether it's oo design or
whatever. Poor design leads to less flexibility. In a way I have to agree
that the multi-tier design may be seen somewhat as a limitation of MS.
Specifically that you might need to take a logical layer and move it to a
physical layer on a different machine for performance reasons. Maybe a
talking point would be using a Sun/Oracle system instead. No design is
perfect because the world is not perfect (possibly with the exception of

my world, hopefully I'll get to go out rollerblading down to West Broadway
Soho, 41 degrees and sunny in the Big Apple).

No design is PERFECT!!!! DUHHHHHH!!!!
So why do you OOP NITWITS try to design with the same UN-FLEXIBLE OOP n-TIER
architecture AGAIN AND AGAIN only to RE-WRITE the WHOLE thing from SCRATCH
AGAIN AND AGAIN.

OOP / n-TIER TALKS of FLEXIBILITY but NEVER ACHIEVES it in the REAL WORLD
because IT has NO IDEA where it should be flexible in the first place.

That's why YOU are always in RE=WRITE mode, just like DotNetJunkies.com are
in right now.

WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a
BLUEPRINT (OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL if the

KEY
things change all the time?


What good is the blueprint of a house if you decide you don't want a
basement anymore.

YES, that right! What good is a blueprint or OBJECT MODEL if the foundation
changes? And THAT's exactly what happens in the REAL WORLD, the FOUNDATION
CHANGES ALL THE TIME.

OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used that
effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use Inheritance,
why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?


Sounds like they are overusing Inheritance in a similar way people overuse
web services. Look at the PageBase module of the Duwamish sample for a

good way to use Inheritance.

Duwamish is a complete MESS....OVER COMPLICATED solution for something SO
SIMPLE.
BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING QUESTIONS
ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING OUT A
PDC SEMINAR....
That seems rather obvious. You might want to figure out a bit of list
etiquette. The purpose of these lists is learning.

YOU CAN'T LEARN if you CAN'T ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES.
THE OOP / n-TIER CULT needs to admit that OOP and N-TIER has SEVERE
LIMITATIONS and has a POOR TRACK RECORD in the REAL WORLD.
EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
implementing changes...
Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger
e-Commerce Fortune 500 web site?????


So should we feel sorry for dotnetnukes?
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.


Yes, you are often stating facts. Does saying period make them more of a
fact.


*PERIOD* helps the BRAINWASHED know where things begin and end as they got
their heads buried in the OOP books whose AUTHORS also don't have their OWN
WEB SITE, NOR built it from scratch and maintain it 100% themselves as they
are TOO busy at conferences speakiing or writing LITE EXAMPLE CODE for their
books that works here and there.

IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you are in
COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.
Can you propose a different way to go? I'm sure we would all be facinated

to see something. Don't confuse corporate, media and MS brainwashing towards
their particular products with solid scientific design benefits.
AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND N-TIER
ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get LOW
quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....????
Are you saying that programmers in India don't use oo design?

I am saying programmers in India do use OO design which produces the same
CRAPPY INFLEXIBLE software that you get in this country.


The other response I saw on the C# list basically completly responded to
your posting with three words "Mom and Pop" That seems to be the scenario of what you are looking at.

You can't expect a young person to be a real world expert on oo design, ie: been there, done that, now know how to do it again a bit better now. OO
methodology has'nt even been around that long. It's definetly evolving as is the speed of computer hardware and how software can take advantage of that. One does not learn to be a master programmer by being a master programmer.
One learns to be a master programmer by first being a junior programmer,
mid-level programmer, senior programmer, junior analyst, mid-level analyst, senior analyst, junior business analyst, mid-level business analyst, senior business analyst, ..., project leader, project manager, etc.

I personally don't really find a problem with the attitude of your posting. It was interesting. I believe in throwing a bit of entertainment and
personality into our world of computer science. But don't put down people
who are trying to help others in what may appear to you to be in their own
limited way.

Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
If you really want to LEARN something, TRY ACTUALLY DOING IT instead of
sticking your head in some book made by authors who they themselves don't
produce production code, NOR maintain their web site and see all the
problems. Tiny pieces of *example* code in a book is a way way different
then an entire enterprise application that YOU, YOURSELF, PERSONALLY have to
MAINTAIN.

There is a BIG difference in an OOP / n-TIER architect who sits around
telling other programmers what to do and creating his object model diagram
in Visio or Rational or whatever you want in like UML and USE CASES, AND the
ACTUAL PROGRAMMER who has to understand all that FAILED OOP crap from some
arrogant nitwit whose only accomplishment is their resume that is full of
HOLLOW technical articles or books and a bunch of 3 or 4 letter acronyms.

PERIOD.

"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:_P*********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Makes you think about the difference between being ignorant and an
ignoramus.

I'm not sure why I only read the CSharp group. I never did VB. Did FoxPro
until a few years ago, before that was a mini/mainframe person. I like C#,
but am still learning it. I guess at some point my learning will get more
into the framework and aspnet side.
PS - nospam is an idiot. He occasionally trolls the groups with his
unifromed, ignorant anti-OOP blatherings.


Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
So what is your alternative to OOP. Be Specific. Every other time I've
asked, you've come up with some platitude about simplicity.

So let me speak from experience. Check out www.devbuzz.com .(check out the
Forums on the CF for instance...I'm a moderator there and can speak to how
Derrick built it). One guy got that site up and running before ASP.NET was
even around...and he's built it with, you guessed it OOP. I didn't design
it but I actively work on it and support it, and without OOP it wouldn't be
worth the effort.!

Check out my company web site.... www.infoprogroup.com (or
https://inforporgroup.com/SecureFTP once again, done with OOP (Flash,
ASP.NET, Infragistics and Dart SecureFTP). I can show you two other sites
that I've built all by my little self, HIPPA compliant, SSL enabled, using
components like Infragistics tools (all OOP components) and Component one.

Check out www.csharpcorner.com and www.ipaq.net both built off of components
and OOP (based on the ASP.NET starter kits). While I had nothing to do with
building either of these...the source is published for free there and one
can take it and get a site up and running in under a few hours if you have
a SQL Server and know IIS at a basic level. OOP at its best.

So what would you use...if not OOP? Glue your businesss logic into your UI?
Be specific about what you would do, or quit trashing the good work that
others do.

Just b/c dotnetjunkies had ONE problem, that's a failure of OOP? Hmm, it's
been up and running quite well for a long time. It's also a project that
the brilliant developers of that site did as a hobby. Where are your URL's?
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
COMMENTS INLINE BELOW...............
"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:JQ********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
You make some interesting points but you seem a bit bitter. Did you know
that there are many excellent brands of decaffinated coffee on the market.
The site looks very nice to me.
HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Project management 101. The old time, quality, resources triangle.

Subtract
from any item it and you will need to increase one of the others to

produce
the same result.


BLAH BLAH BLAH....
DotNetJunkies.com are supposed to be the EXPERTS. Plus you don't even have

a web site to even point to.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????
They probably could'nt afford it. I recently quoted someone $200,000 for a
project. They were shocked. Then I told them that was just for the design and specification.

$200k !!! ha ha ha... no wonder why you don't have a web site.....
I guess it would have take you 2 years to do as well right?
BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL VAST

DESIGN
CHANGES ISN'T IT?


If written properly. It would seem to me that vast design changes would be best off with a new design. Did you ever read a book on oo programming?

DUHHHHHHH......
I guess you could have written it properly then? I don't see your web

site, but then again it takes you 2 years to do one anyway. So, I guess you spend all your time reading books on OO programming, YET, just can't seem to find the time to actually produce a web site.

IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!
I can predict with absolute 100% certainty that I'd always like my system to
be able to make me a cheeseburger.
world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be
able
to
do it??????


Let's say a JP Morgan sees that if they had a nice system that was

auditable
they could open a new credit derivitave market and could make 20 million

a day. I think they could afford a good design.

PERHAPS, BUT you would take 2-3 years to implement it once you finished
reading your OOP book that you love to be brainwashed with.
Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will get more
features

Is that a trick question?
and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN
PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?


Totally incorrect. Let's just take a simple example of a customer
maintenance screen that you may want to add another field too. Good

design leads to flexibility and understandability wether it's oo design or
whatever. Poor design leads to less flexibility. In a way I have to agree that the multi-tier design may be seen somewhat as a limitation of MS.
Specifically that you might need to take a logical layer and move it to a physical layer on a different machine for performance reasons. Maybe a
talking point would be using a Sun/Oracle system instead. No design is
perfect because the world is not perfect (possibly with the exception of

my
world, hopefully I'll get to go out rollerblading down to West Broadway
Soho, 41 degrees and sunny in the Big Apple).

No design is PERFECT!!!! DUHHHHHH!!!!
So why do you OOP NITWITS try to design with the same UN-FLEXIBLE OOP

n-TIER architecture AGAIN AND AGAIN only to RE-WRITE the WHOLE thing from SCRATCH
AGAIN AND AGAIN.

OOP / n-TIER TALKS of FLEXIBILITY but NEVER ACHIEVES it in the REAL WORLD
because IT has NO IDEA where it should be flexible in the first place.

That's why YOU are always in RE=WRITE mode, just like DotNetJunkies.com are in right now.

WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a BLUEPRINT (OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL if the KEY
things change all the time?
What good is the blueprint of a house if you decide you don't want a
basement anymore.

YES, that right! What good is a blueprint or OBJECT MODEL if the

foundation changes? And THAT's exactly what happens in the REAL WORLD, the FOUNDATION CHANGES ALL THE TIME.

OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used that
effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use Inheritance,
why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?


Sounds like they are overusing Inheritance in a similar way people overuse
web services. Look at the PageBase module of the Duwamish sample for a

good
way to use Inheritance.

Duwamish is a complete MESS....OVER COMPLICATED solution for something SO
SIMPLE.
BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING

QUESTIONS
ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING OUT
A
PDC SEMINAR....


That seems rather obvious. You might want to figure out a bit of list
etiquette. The purpose of these lists is learning.

YOU CAN'T LEARN if you CAN'T ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES.
THE OOP / n-TIER CULT needs to admit that OOP and N-TIER has SEVERE
LIMITATIONS and has a POOR TRACK RECORD in the REAL WORLD.
EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
implementing changes...
Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger

e-Commerce Fortune 500 web site?????


So should we feel sorry for dotnetnukes?
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.


Yes, you are often stating facts. Does saying period make them more of a
fact.


*PERIOD* helps the BRAINWASHED know where things begin and end as they got
their heads buried in the OOP books whose AUTHORS also don't have their

OWN WEB SITE, NOR built it from scratch and maintain it 100% themselves as they are TOO busy at conferences speakiing or writing LITE EXAMPLE CODE for their books that works here and there.

IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you are
in COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.


Can you propose a different way to go? I'm sure we would all be

facinated to
see something. Don't confuse corporate, media and MS brainwashing
towards their particular products with solid scientific design benefits.
AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND N-TIER
ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get LOW
quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....????


Are you saying that programmers in India don't use oo design?

I am saying programmers in India do use OO design which produces the same
CRAPPY INFLEXIBLE software that you get in this country.


The other response I saw on the C# list basically completly responded to
your posting with three words "Mom and Pop" That seems to be the scenario of
what you are looking at.

You can't expect a young person to be a real world expert on oo design, ie:
been there, done that, now know how to do it again a bit better now. OO
methodology has'nt even been around that long. It's definetly evolving

as is
the speed of computer hardware and how software can take advantage of

that.
One does not learn to be a master programmer by being a master

programmer. One learns to be a master programmer by first being a junior programmer,
mid-level programmer, senior programmer, junior analyst, mid-level

analyst,
senior analyst, junior business analyst, mid-level business analyst,

senior
business analyst, ..., project leader, project manager, etc.

I personally don't really find a problem with the attitude of your

posting.
It was interesting. I believe in throwing a bit of entertainment and
personality into our world of computer science. But don't put down people who are trying to help others in what may appear to you to be in their own limited way.


Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
Well, let's see. Do you frequently change databases to justify n-TIER?

NO.

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!!!

Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why isn't
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?

You may have the business logic to purchase items in your web site; HOWEVER,
how many sales do you get through a PDA since YOUR BUSINESS LAYER allows you
to have a different presentation layer???????
Ask yourself if you OR anyone you know has actually bought something sole
though the use of PDA.

Have you had the need to use n-Tier???????????????????????????????????????

Why would you want to connect this to another database? Is that going to
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?
See all of these TIERS, they don't seem to be used do they????? And if they
are of what benefit have they really been to you? What's the ROI on the
extra development time?
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 good is the Tier model if the NEXT big thing is a totally new language
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.

The solution is K.I.S.S., NOT OOP or n-TIER.


"William Ryan" <do********@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eK**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
So what is your alternative to OOP. Be Specific. Every other time I've
asked, you've come up with some platitude about simplicity.

So let me speak from experience. Check out www.devbuzz.com .(check out the Forums on the CF for instance...I'm a moderator there and can speak to how
Derrick built it). One guy got that site up and running before ASP.NET was even around...and he's built it with, you guessed it OOP. I didn't design
it but I actively work on it and support it, and without OOP it wouldn't be worth the effort.!

Check out my company web site.... www.infoprogroup.com (or
https://inforporgroup.com/SecureFTP once again, done with OOP (Flash,
ASP.NET, Infragistics and Dart SecureFTP). I can show you two other sites
that I've built all by my little self, HIPPA compliant, SSL enabled, using
components like Infragistics tools (all OOP components) and Component one.
Check out www.csharpcorner.com and www.ipaq.net both built off of components and OOP (based on the ASP.NET starter kits). While I had nothing to do with building either of these...the source is published for free there and one
can take it and get a site up and running in under a few hours if you have a SQL Server and know IIS at a basic level. OOP at its best.

So what would you use...if not OOP? Glue your businesss logic into your UI? Be specific about what you would do, or quit trashing the good work that
others do.

Just b/c dotnetjunkies had ONE problem, that's a failure of OOP? Hmm, it's been up and running quite well for a long time. It's also a project that
the brilliant developers of that site did as a hobby. Where are your URL's? "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
COMMENTS INLINE BELOW...............
"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:JQ********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
You make some interesting points but you seem a bit bitter. Did you know that there are many excellent brands of decaffinated coffee on the market. The site looks very nice to me.

> HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Project management 101. The old time, quality, resources triangle. Subtract
from any item it and you will need to increase one of the others to

produce
the same result.


BLAH BLAH BLAH....
DotNetJunkies.com are supposed to be the EXPERTS. Plus you don't even have a
web site to even point to.

> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????

They probably could'nt afford it. I recently quoted someone $200,000 for
a project. They were shocked. Then I told them that was just for the design and specification.

$200k !!! ha ha ha... no wonder why you don't have a web site.....
I guess it would have take you 2 years to do as well right?

> BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL
VAST DESIGN
> CHANGES ISN'T IT?

If written properly. It would seem to me that vast design changes would be best off with a new design. Did you ever read a book on oo
programming?


DUHHHHHHH......
I guess you could have written it properly then? I don't see your web site,
but then again it takes you 2 years to do one anyway. So, I guess you

spend
all your time reading books on OO programming, YET, just can't seem to

find
the time to actually produce a web site.


> IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!

I can predict with absolute 100% certainty that I'd always like my system
to
be able to make me a cheeseburger.

> world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be

able
to
> do it??????

Let's say a JP Morgan sees that if they had a nice system that was

auditable
they could open a new credit derivitave market and could make 20

million a day. I think they could afford a good design.

PERHAPS, BUT you would take 2-3 years to implement it once you finished
reading your OOP book that you love to be brainwashed with.

> Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will
get more
features

Is that a trick question?

> and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN
> PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?

Totally incorrect. Let's just take a simple example of a customer
maintenance screen that you may want to add another field too. Good design leads to flexibility and understandability wether it's oo design or
whatever. Poor design leads to less flexibility. In a way I have to agree that the multi-tier design may be seen somewhat as a limitation of MS.
Specifically that you might need to take a logical layer and move it
to a physical layer on a different machine for performance reasons. Maybe a
talking point would be using a Sun/Oracle system instead. No design is
perfect because the world is not perfect (possibly with the exception
of my
world, hopefully I'll get to go out rollerblading down to West
Broadway Soho, 41 degrees and sunny in the Big Apple).

No design is PERFECT!!!! DUHHHHHH!!!!
So why do you OOP NITWITS try to design with the same UN-FLEXIBLE OOP

n-TIER
architecture AGAIN AND AGAIN only to RE-WRITE the WHOLE thing from

SCRATCH AGAIN AND AGAIN.

OOP / n-TIER TALKS of FLEXIBILITY but NEVER ACHIEVES it in the REAL WORLD because IT has NO IDEA where it should be flexible in the first place.

That's why YOU are always in RE=WRITE mode, just like DotNetJunkies.com

are
in right now.


> WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a

BLUEPRINT
> (OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL if the KEY
> things change all the time?

What good is the blueprint of a house if you decide you don't want a
basement anymore.

YES, that right! What good is a blueprint or OBJECT MODEL if the

foundation
changes? And THAT's exactly what happens in the REAL WORLD, the

FOUNDATION
CHANGES ALL THE TIME.


> OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used that
> effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use
Inheritance,
> why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?

Sounds like they are overusing Inheritance in a similar way people overuse web services. Look at the PageBase module of the Duwamish sample for a

good
way to use Inheritance.

Duwamish is a complete MESS....OVER COMPLICATED solution for something SO SIMPLE.

> BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING
QUESTIONS
> ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING
OUT
A
> PDC SEMINAR....

That seems rather obvious. You might want to figure out a bit of list
etiquette. The purpose of these lists is learning.

YOU CAN'T LEARN if you CAN'T ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES.
THE OOP / n-TIER CULT needs to admit that OOP and N-TIER has SEVERE
LIMITATIONS and has a POOR TRACK RECORD in the REAL WORLD.

> EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
> implementing changes...
> Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger

e-Commerce
> Fortune 500 web site?????

So should we feel sorry for dotnetnukes?

> THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.

Yes, you are often stating facts. Does saying period make them more of
a fact.


*PERIOD* helps the BRAINWASHED know where things begin and end as they

got their heads buried in the OOP books whose AUTHORS also don't have their

OWN
WEB SITE, NOR built it from scratch and maintain it 100% themselves as

they
are TOO busy at conferences speakiing or writing LITE EXAMPLE CODE for

their
books that works here and there.


> IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you are in > COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.

Can you propose a different way to go? I'm sure we would all be facinated
to
see something. Don't confuse corporate, media and MS brainwashing

towards their particular products with solid scientific design benefits.

> AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND N-TIER
> ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get LOW > quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....????

Are you saying that programmers in India don't use oo design?

I am saying programmers in India do use OO design which produces the same CRAPPY INFLEXIBLE software that you get in this country.


The other response I saw on the C# list basically completly responded to your posting with three words "Mom and Pop" That seems to be the scenario
of
what you are looking at.

You can't expect a young person to be a real world expert on oo design, ie:
been there, done that, now know how to do it again a bit better now.

OO methodology has'nt even been around that long. It's definetly evolving

as
is
the speed of computer hardware and how software can take advantage of

that.
One does not learn to be a master programmer by being a master

programmer. One learns to be a master programmer by first being a junior programmer, mid-level programmer, senior programmer, junior analyst, mid-level

analyst,
senior analyst, junior business analyst, mid-level business analyst,

senior
business analyst, ..., project leader, project manager, etc.

I personally don't really find a problem with the attitude of your

posting.
It was interesting. I believe in throwing a bit of entertainment and
personality into our world of computer science. But don't put down people who are trying to help others in what may appear to you to be in their own limited way.



Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
I need to add some more......

MORE COMMENTS INLINE BELOW
"William Ryan" <do********@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eK**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Check out my company web site.... www.infoprogroup.com (or
https://inforporgroup.com/SecureFTP once again, done with OOP (Flash,
ASP.NET, Infragistics and Dart SecureFTP). I can show you two other sites
that I've built all by my little self, HIPPA compliant, SSL enabled, using
components like Infragistics tools (all OOP components) and Component one.


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

Do you have the SOURCE code to the Component One and Infragistics?

You are calling all of these OBJECTS, your code could be SLOWER. But what
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...

BUT OF COURSE, you didn't build it from scratch and pretty much bought
someone else's product, so how would you even know anything about OOP or
n-TIER in the first place as you REALLY didn't do the coding. But if you
are recommending people to BUY other people's stuff that fine.

Performance, reliability, customization, maintenance are totally different
if you have to support the FULL code.
So what would you use...if not OOP? Glue your businesss logic into your UI? Be specific about what you would do, or quit trashing the good work that
others do.

Just b/c dotnetjunkies had ONE problem, that's a failure of OOP? Hmm, it's been up and running quite well for a long time. It's also a project that
the brilliant developers of that site did as a hobby. Where are your

URL's?
*TWO POINTS*
(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.

(2) IF they are so brilliant, then it should have taken them very little
time to do it the right way with the OOP / n-Tier way.

K.I.S.S. has always worked. OOP has a 50/50 gamble at best

Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
Hi Bill,

|| and hell, use Comma Separated Text files for your database.

ROFL.

Regards,
Fergus
Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
Hi nospam,

|| TRY ACTUALLY DOING IT instead of sticking your
|| head in some book made by authors who they themselves
|| don't roduce production code

I presume, then, that you talk from no small amount of experience.
Let us see, please, your KISS website - the one that offers all the
features yet could be persuaded to offer that and more in the twinkle
of a nospam thought.

What's your website, nospam?
We are keen to bow down
before this altar.

Regards,
Fergus
Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
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
Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
Maybe not comma delimited files....but let's look at the broken and crappy
Windows Registry.

Win.ini files were doing quite nicely. 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 can't move your programs and these NEW programs from Microsoft had to
create the SPECIAL programs to more your settings around. BEFORE, it was a
simple COPY and PASTE COMMAND to switch drives or computers.

What does this mean? LOWER, MUCH LOWER REliability. Higher maintenance.
Single point of failure and ATTACK for viruses.

Look at all these WORKAROUNDS Microsoft had to do and STILL has to do for
it's VS.NET and other programs just to move your setting to another
computer.

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.
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!!!
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. I guess having
a BOOK is the SUPREME validation as opposed to a REAL WEB SITE...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.



"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.com> wrote in message
news:e%****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi Bill,

|| and hell, use Comma Separated Text files for your database.

ROFL.

Regards,
Fergus

Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a
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

--
Have you noticed how condescending Herfried can be?
Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
<<> 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.

<<> Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why
isn't 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.
<<> Have you had the need to use
n-Tier???????????????????????????????????????
Yes, absolutely.
<<> Why would you want to connect this to another database? Is that going
to 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. .

<<> See all of these TIERS, they don't seem to be used do they????? And if
they 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.
<<> What good is the Tier model if the NEXT big thing is a totally new
language 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?

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u$**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Well, let's see. Do you frequently change databases to justify n-TIER?

NO.

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!!!

Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why isn't 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?

You may have the business logic to purchase items in your web site; HOWEVER, how many sales do you get through a PDA since YOUR BUSINESS LAYER allows you to have a different presentation layer???????





"William Ryan" <do********@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eK**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
So what is your alternative to OOP. Be Specific. Every other time I've
asked, you've come up with some platitude about simplicity.

So let me speak from experience. Check out www.devbuzz.com .(check out the
Forums on the CF for instance...I'm a moderator there and can speak to how Derrick built it). One guy got that site up and running before ASP.NET

was
even around...and he's built it with, you guessed it OOP. I didn't design it but I actively work on it and support it, and without OOP it wouldn't

be
worth the effort.!

Check out my company web site.... www.infoprogroup.com (or
https://inforporgroup.com/SecureFTP once again, done with OOP (Flash,
ASP.NET, Infragistics and Dart SecureFTP). I can show you two other sites that I've built all by my little self, HIPPA compliant, SSL enabled, using components like Infragistics tools (all OOP components) and Component

one.

Check out www.csharpcorner.com and www.ipaq.net both built off of

components
and OOP (based on the ASP.NET starter kits). While I had nothing to do

with
building either of these...the source is published for free there and one can take it and get a site up and running in under a few hours if you

have
a SQL Server and know IIS at a basic level. OOP at its best.

So what would you use...if not OOP? Glue your businesss logic into your

UI?
Be specific about what you would do, or quit trashing the good work that
others do.

Just b/c dotnetjunkies had ONE problem, that's a failure of OOP? Hmm,

it's
been up and running quite well for a long time. It's also a project that the brilliant developers of that site did as a hobby. Where are your

URL's?
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
COMMENTS INLINE BELOW...............
"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:JQ********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> You make some interesting points but you seem a bit bitter. Did you know > that there are many excellent brands of decaffinated coffee on the

market.
> The site looks very nice to me.
>
> > HOW COME THEY COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
>
> Project management 101. The old time, quality, resources triangle.
Subtract
> from any item it and you will need to increase one of the others to
produce
> the same result.
>

BLAH BLAH BLAH....
DotNetJunkies.com are supposed to be the EXPERTS. Plus you don't even have
a
web site to even point to.
> > WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DESIGN PHASE??????
>
> They probably could'nt afford it. I recently quoted someone $200,000

for
a
> project. They were shocked. Then I told them that was just for the

design
> and specification.
$200k !!! ha ha ha... no wonder why you don't have a web site.....
I guess it would have take you 2 years to do as well right?

>
> > BUT OOP and n-TIER IS SUPPOSED TO FLEXIBLE AND EXTENSIBLE TO ALL

VAST > DESIGN
> > CHANGES ISN'T IT?
>
> If written properly. It would seem to me that vast design changes would
be
> best off with a new design. Did you ever read a book on oo

programming?

DUHHHHHHH......
I guess you could have written it properly then? I don't see your web

site,
but then again it takes you 2 years to do one anyway. So, I guess you

spend
all your time reading books on OO programming, YET, just can't seem to

find
the time to actually produce a web site.


>
> > IT MEANS YOU CAN"T PREDICT THE FUTURE in YOUR DESIGN PHASE!!!!
>
> I can predict with absolute 100% certainty that I'd always like my

system
to
> be able to make me a cheeseburger.
>
> > world should you think that a corporate site that has COMPETITORS be able
> to
> > do it??????
>
> Let's say a JP Morgan sees that if they had a nice system that was
auditable
> they could open a new credit derivitave market and could make 20 million
a
> day. I think they could afford a good design.
PERHAPS, BUT you would take 2-3 years to implement it once you finished reading your OOP book that you love to be brainwashed with.

>
> > Did it ever occur to you that as the web site gets older, it will

get more
> features
>
> Is that a trick question?
>
> > and more requirements that will NEVER be designed for in the DESIGN > > PHASE of OOP n-Tier methodology?
>
> Totally incorrect. Let's just take a simple example of a customer
> maintenance screen that you may want to add another field too. Good

design
> leads to flexibility and understandability wether it's oo design or
> whatever. Poor design leads to less flexibility. In a way I have to

agree
> that the multi-tier design may be seen somewhat as a limitation of MS. > Specifically that you might need to take a logical layer and move it to
a
> physical layer on a different machine for performance reasons. Maybe a > talking point would be using a Sun/Oracle system instead. No design is > perfect because the world is not perfect (possibly with the exception of my
> world, hopefully I'll get to go out rollerblading down to West Broadway > Soho, 41 degrees and sunny in the Big Apple).
No design is PERFECT!!!! DUHHHHHH!!!!
So why do you OOP NITWITS try to design with the same UN-FLEXIBLE OOP n-TIER
architecture AGAIN AND AGAIN only to RE-WRITE the WHOLE thing from SCRATCH AGAIN AND AGAIN.

OOP / n-TIER TALKS of FLEXIBILITY but NEVER ACHIEVES it in the REAL WORLD because IT has NO IDEA where it should be flexible in the first place.

That's why YOU are always in RE=WRITE mode, just like
DotNetJunkies.com are
in right now.
>
> > WEB SITES ARE NOT LIKE HOUSES or BUILDING CARS where you have a
BLUEPRINT
> > (OR OBJECT MODEL) of what to make. What good is your OBJECT MODEL
if the
> KEY
> > things change all the time?
>
> What good is the blueprint of a house if you decide you don't want a
> basement anymore.
YES, that right! What good is a blueprint or OBJECT MODEL if the

foundation
changes? And THAT's exactly what happens in the REAL WORLD, the

FOUNDATION
CHANGES ALL THE TIME.
>
> > OH, but what about INHERITANCE? Well, doesn't seem to be used
that > > effectively by the DotNetJunkies site does it? IF they did use
> Inheritance,
> > why did they have to do a complete engine redesign?
>
> Sounds like they are overusing Inheritance in a similar way people

overuse
> web services. Look at the PageBase module of the Duwamish sample for a good
> way to use Inheritance.
Duwamish is a complete MESS....OVER COMPLICATED solution for something

SO SIMPLE.

>
> > BUILDING A PRODUCTION WEB SITE IS A LOT HARDER THEN JUST ANSWERING
> QUESTIONS
> > ON THE NEWSGROUPS or TEACHING ANY and ALL .NET CLASSES OR EVEN GIVING OUT
> A
> > PDC SEMINAR....
>
> That seems rather obvious. You might want to figure out a bit of list > etiquette. The purpose of these lists is learning.
YOU CAN'T LEARN if you CAN'T ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES.
THE OOP / n-TIER CULT needs to admit that OOP and N-TIER has SEVERE
LIMITATIONS and has a POOR TRACK RECORD in the REAL WORLD.

>
> > EVEN THE .NET PORTAL and DOTNETNUKE have LOTS AND LOTS of trouble
> > implementing changes...
> > Why should you expect it to be any different for an even larger
e-Commerce
> > Fortune 500 web site?????
>
> So should we feel sorry for dotnetnukes?
>
> > THOSE ARE THE FACTS. PERIOD.
>
> Yes, you are often stating facts. Does saying period make them more of a
> fact.

*PERIOD* helps the BRAINWASHED know where things begin and end as they got their heads buried in the OOP books whose AUTHORS also don't have
their OWN
WEB SITE, NOR built it from scratch and maintain it 100% themselves as they
are TOO busy at conferences speakiing or writing LITE EXAMPLE CODE for

their
books that works here and there.
>
> > IF YOU are STILL so BRAINWASHED on the n-TIER / OOP BENEFITS you
are in
> > COMPLETE DENIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.
>
> Can you propose a different way to go? I'm sure we would all be

facinated
to
> see something. Don't confuse corporate, media and MS brainwashing

towards
> their particular products with solid scientific design benefits.
>
> > AND THAT"S WHY YOUR JOBS ARE GOING OFFSHORE. BECAUSE OOP AND
N-TIER > > ARCHITECTURE PRODUCE LOW QUALITY PRODUCTS and IF I am going to get

LOW > > quality products why should I pay TOP consulting fee prices....???? >
> Are you saying that programmers in India don't use oo design?
I am saying programmers in India do use OO design which produces the same CRAPPY INFLEXIBLE software that you get in this country.
>
> The other response I saw on the C# list basically completly responded to
> your posting with three words "Mom and Pop" That seems to be the

scenario
of
> what you are looking at.
>
> You can't expect a young person to be a real world expert on oo design, ie:
> been there, done that, now know how to do it again a bit better now. OO > methodology has'nt even been around that long. It's definetly
evolving as
is
> the speed of computer hardware and how software can take advantage
of that.
> One does not learn to be a master programmer by being a master

programmer.
> One learns to be a master programmer by first being a junior

programmer, > mid-level programmer, senior programmer, junior analyst, mid-level
analyst,
> senior analyst, junior business analyst, mid-level business analyst, senior
> business analyst, ..., project leader, project manager, etc.
>
> I personally don't really find a problem with the attitude of your
posting.
> It was interesting. I believe in throwing a bit of entertainment and
> personality into our world of computer science. But don't put down

people
> who are trying to help others in what may appear to you to be in

their own
> limited way.
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
<<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.

<<> You are calling all of these OBJECTS, your code could be SLOWER. But
what
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.

<<> (2) IF they are so brilliant, then it should have taken them very little 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.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OO**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... I need to add some more......

MORE COMMENTS INLINE BELOW
"William Ryan" <do********@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eK**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Check out my company web site.... www.infoprogroup.com (or
https://inforporgroup.com/SecureFTP once again, done with OOP (Flash,
ASP.NET, Infragistics and Dart SecureFTP). I can show you two other sites that I've built all by my little self, HIPPA compliant, SSL enabled, using components like Infragistics tools (all OOP components) and Component one.


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


BUT OF COURSE, you didn't build it from scratch and pretty much bought
someone else's product, so how would you even know anything about OOP or
n-TIER in the first place as you REALLY didn't do the coding. But if you
are recommending people to BUY other people's stuff that fine.

Performance, reliability, customization, maintenance are totally different
if you have to support the FULL code.
So what would you use...if not OOP? Glue your businesss logic into your UI?
Be specific about what you would do, or quit trashing the good work that
others do.

Just b/c dotnetjunkies had ONE problem, that's a failure of OOP? Hmm,

it's
been up and running quite well for a long time. It's also a project that the brilliant developers of that site did as a hobby. Where are your

URL's?
*TWO POINTS*
(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.


K.I.S.S. has always worked. OOP has a 50/50 gamble at best


Jul 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
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?
"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.com> wrote in message
news:eF**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hi nospam,

|| TRY ACTUALLY DOING IT instead of sticking your
|| head in some book made by authors who they themselves
|| don't roduce production code

I presume, then, that you talk from no small amount of experience.
Let us see, please, your KISS website - the one that offers all the
features yet could be persuaded to offer that and more in the twinkle
of a nospam thought.

What's your website, nospam?
We are keen to bow down
before this altar.

Regards,
Fergus

Jul 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
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.
==================================================
Jul 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
Like I said, I don't even know who this, Herfried is?

"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.com> wrote in message
news:OT**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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

--
Have you noticed how condescending Herfried can be?

Jul 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
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 they
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.

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.


"William Ryan" <do********@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eQ**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... <<> 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.

<<> Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why
isn't
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.
<<> Have you had the need to use
n-Tier??????????????????????????????????????? Yes, absolutely.

<<> Why would you want to connect this to another database? Is that going
to
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. .

<<> See all of these TIERS, they don't seem to be used do they????? And if they
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.
<<> What good is the Tier model if the NEXT big thing is a totally new
language
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?
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u$**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Well, let's see. Do you frequently change databases to justify n-TIER?

NO.

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!!!

Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why

isn't
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?

You may have the business logic to purchase items in your web site;

HOWEVER,
how many sales do you get through a PDA since YOUR BUSINESS LAYER allows

you
to have a different presentation layer???????

Jul 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
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.
==================================================
Jul 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
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.
==================================================
Jul 21 '05 #30

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

"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.com> wrote in message
news:uO*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
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.



Jul 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
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.
==================================================
Jul 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
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!
Jul 21 '05 #33

P: n/a
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

"Empire City" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:KQ*********************@twister.nyc.rr.com...
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!

Jul 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
Once again, are we talking about OOP or ASP.NET?
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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
they
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.

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.


"William Ryan" <do********@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eQ**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
<<> 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.

<<> Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why isn't
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.
<<> Have you had the need to use
n-Tier???????????????????????????????????????
> Yes, absolutely.


<<> Why would you want to connect this to another database? Is that going to
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. .

<<> See all of these TIERS, they don't seem to be used do they????? And if
they
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.
<<> What good is the Tier model if the NEXT big thing is a totally new
language
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?

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u$**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Well, let's see. Do you frequently change databases to justify
n-TIER?
NO.

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!!!

Let's take a LOOK at DEVBUZ.com. Nice site, still with asp. YET, why

isn't
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?
You may have the business logic to purchase items in your web site;

HOWEVER,
how many sales do you get through a PDA since YOUR BUSINESS LAYER

allows you
to have a different presentation layer???????


Jul 21 '05 #35

P: n/a
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
Jul 21 '05 #36

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

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:er**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
What does this mean? LOWER, MUCH LOWER REliability. Higher maintenance.
Single point of failure and ATTACK for viruses.

Jul 21 '05 #37

P: n/a
> 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

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:er**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
What does this mean? LOWER, MUCH LOWER REliability. Higher maintenance.
Single point of failure and ATTACK for viruses.


Jul 21 '05 #38

P: n/a

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*
--
____________________
Klaus H. Probst, MVP
http://www.vbbox.com/

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ex**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE

Jul 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
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" <us*******@vbbox.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

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*
--
____________________
Klaus H. Probst, MVP
http://www.vbbox.com/

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ex**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE


Jul 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
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.
Jul 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
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" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ex**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE


<blah blah blah>
Jul 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
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
Jul 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
Never had a larf before, are they tasty? :)

"Fergus Cooney" <fi****@post.com> wrote in message
news:u4**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
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

Jul 21 '05 #44

P: n/a

(from various post in the thread)
K.I.S.S. is the architecture that has proven itself...not OOP / n-Tier whichhas 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. K.I.S.S. has always worked. OOP has a 50/50 gamble at best OOP is COMPLEX, PERIOD. It's a unecessary abstraction at the cost of

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
Jul 21 '05 #45

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Why not blame it on the tools?


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?
--
____________________
Klaus H. Probst, MVP
http://www.vbbox.com/
Jul 21 '05 #46

P: n/a
> 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.
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!


"Klaus H. Probst" <us*******@vbbox.com> wrote in message
news:uc**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Why not blame it on the tools?


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?
--
____________________
Klaus H. Probst, MVP
http://www.vbbox.com/

Jul 21 '05 #47

P: n/a
I seem to be having an effect then......


"Daniel Billingsley" <db**********@NO.durcon.SPAAMM.com> wrote in message
news:u5***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ex**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE


<blah blah blah>

Jul 21 '05 #48

P: n/a
MORE COMMENTS INLINE BELOW..........

"Daniel Billingsley" <db**********@NO.durcon.SPAAMM.com> wrote in message
news:u5***************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
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.

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.....



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" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ex**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
THIS IS the DOTNETJUNKIES MESSAGE


<blah blah blah>

Jul 21 '05 #49

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OQ**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Or it could be Audi [...] American car manufacturers in the 1970's made very unreliable cars.
It was an analogy. Don't get carried away now.
Maybe some outsider will
show all programmers how to build software
Vegans maybe?
You are just UPSET that someone took your TOOLS argument and stuck it right back in your FACE.
Not REALLY but if that MAKES you feel BETTER then OKAY.
You got nothing to say.


And you are a very low quality troll. Linux zealot fanatics on IRC have you
beat by a mile.

--
____________________
Klaus H. Probst, MVP
http://www.vbbox.com/

Jul 21 '05 #50

51 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.