423,846 Members | 2,048 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 423,846 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for Web? Why

P: n/a
Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for the WEB?
(NOTE: I said, WEB, NOT WINDOWS.

DON'T shoot your mouth off if you don't understand the difference.)

I hear only one reason and that's to switch a database from SQL Server to
Oracle or DB2 or vice versa... and that's it.... And a lot of these
enterprises don't need it as they already know what database they are going
to use and they don't plan on switching in and out database in the first
place, NOR can they afford to in the first place

Nobody switches databases everyday yet Microsoft and MVP's are recommending
these so called best practices for every single .NET implementation for the
enterprise or the mom and pop....Sort of like Windows Advanced Server and
Windows Server....everybody's got to have Advanced server on their
LAPTOP.....

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before recommending
any best practices.

Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easily
contained in the code behind.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-tier architecture
for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA using
COM and .asp pages.....

3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET, that
has better and more simplier ways of doing things.

I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making things more
complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-Tier.

There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who never
question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best way.......

It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....I
wonder why......


Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
77 Replies


P: n/a
Hi,

Multi-tier architectures proved to be reasonable for considerably big
projects where they facilitate maintenance and further development (have you
ever tried to debug a huge code-behind class with thousands of lines of
code?).

It is just easier (well, for some of us, at least :-) to work with logically
separated parts of code - this one works with the database, this one handles
business rules and that one renders user interface.

By the way, the "business logic" tier, in my opinion, is reasonable only
when there are many complex business rules to enforce. This tier can be
omitted for web sites that merely store and display data, but do not perform
any sophisticated data processing.

As for switching the databases...well..I would agree that it happens with
very low probability, but if that happens and all your database code is
spread across the code behind - long boring hours of monkey job are
guaranteed.

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Unit Testing and Integration Environment
http://x-unity.miik.com.ua
Deliver reliable .NET software

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#l**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for the WEB?
(NOTE: I said, WEB, NOT WINDOWS.

DON'T shoot your mouth off if you don't understand the difference.)

I hear only one reason and that's to switch a database from SQL Server to
Oracle or DB2 or vice versa... and that's it.... And a lot of these
enterprises don't need it as they already know what database they are going to use and they don't plan on switching in and out database in the first
place, NOR can they afford to in the first place

Nobody switches databases everyday yet Microsoft and MVP's are recommending these so called best practices for every single .NET implementation for the enterprise or the mom and pop....Sort of like Windows Advanced Server and
Windows Server....everybody's got to have Advanced server on their
LAPTOP.....

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before recommending any best practices.

Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easily
contained in the code behind.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-tier architecture
for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA using
COM and .asp pages.....

3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET, that has better and more simplier ways of doing things.

I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making things more complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-Tier.

There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who never
question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best way.......

It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....I
wonder why......



Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
Also, there's one thing that you're missing - the service
oriented architecture. If you place code in the code
behind page, it can't be called from another process
without loading up the entire web page, transferring to
that site, etc. Using middle tier logic enables you to
hold common services for use across many applications.
It's not just all based on database issues.

Jeff Levinson

Author of "Building Client/Server Applications with
VB.NET: An Example Driven Approach"
-----Original Message-----
Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for the WEB?
(NOTE: I said, WEB, NOT WINDOWS.

DON'T shoot your mouth off if you don't understand the difference.)
I hear only one reason and that's to switch a database from SQL Server toOracle or DB2 or vice versa... and that's it.... And a lot of theseenterprises don't need it as they already know what database they are goingto use and they don't plan on switching in and out database in the firstplace, NOR can they afford to in the first place

Nobody switches databases everyday yet Microsoft and MVP's are recommendingthese so called best practices for every single .NET implementation for theenterprise or the mom and pop....Sort of like Windows Advanced Server andWindows Server....everybody's got to have Advanced server on theirLAPTOP.....

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before recommendingany best practices.

Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easilycontained in the code behind.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3- tier architecturefor .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA usingCOM and .asp pages.....

3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET, thathas better and more simplier ways of doing things.

I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making things morecomplicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N- Tier.
There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who neverquestion if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best way.......
It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....Iwonder why......


.

Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
Just how many lines of code in a Code Behind Page are too much?

I have seen thousands and thousands of lines of code in a business tier as
well, I see no difference.

I would also like to know the actual business SET of rules where this would
happen for each and every single web page.

I can think of only a few cases(i.e. web pages) where this might be,

(1.) Placing an order for like a shopping cart
(2.) Credit approval
(3.) Insurance approval

But that's it.
I see no reason to put the (1) login or (2) search (3)Order Details or the
rest of the web site all in a business tier.

People talk about these "so-called" business rules as if it's in every
single page of the web site. yet that's not true and only increases the
complexity of the web site.
It is just easier (well, for some of us, at least :-) to work with logically separated parts of code - this one works with the database, this one handles business rules and that one renders user interface.
Can you explain, "just why is it easier"? Like is there some feature I am
missing? I coded more pages and sites than any of the top coders I know,
database, business logic and all and possibly more than all of them put
together.

What about all the time you spend trying to figure out grey area rules?
Like is this really in this layer or that layer, or is it really a little
bit of both. And then trying to Later figure out where it is 2 months from
now.

"Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]" <x-****@no-spam-please.hotpop.com> wrote
in message news:ec**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hi,

Multi-tier architectures proved to be reasonable for considerably big
projects where they facilitate maintenance and further development (have you ever tried to debug a huge code-behind class with thousands of lines of
code?).

It is just easier (well, for some of us, at least :-) to work with logically separated parts of code - this one works with the database, this one handles business rules and that one renders user interface.

By the way, the "business logic" tier, in my opinion, is reasonable only
when there are many complex business rules to enforce. This tier can be
omitted for web sites that merely store and display data, but do not perform any sophisticated data processing.

As for switching the databases...well..I would agree that it happens with
very low probability, but if that happens and all your database code is
spread across the code behind - long boring hours of monkey job are
guaranteed.

--
Dmitriy Lapshin [C# / .NET MVP]
X-Unity Unit Testing and Integration Environment
http://x-unity.miik.com.ua
Deliver reliable .NET software

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#l**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for the WEB?
(NOTE: I said, WEB, NOT WINDOWS.

DON'T shoot your mouth off if you don't understand the difference.)

I hear only one reason and that's to switch a database from SQL Server to Oracle or DB2 or vice versa... and that's it.... And a lot of these
enterprises don't need it as they already know what database they are

going
to use and they don't plan on switching in and out database in the first
place, NOR can they afford to in the first place

Nobody switches databases everyday yet Microsoft and MVP's are

recommending
these so called best practices for every single .NET implementation for

the
enterprise or the mom and pop....Sort of like Windows Advanced Server and Windows Server....everybody's got to have Advanced server on their
LAPTOP.....

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before

recommending
any best practices.

Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easily
contained in the code behind.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-tier architecture for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA using COM and .asp pages.....

3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET,

that
has better and more simplier ways of doing things.

I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making things

more
complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-Tier.

There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who never question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best way.......

It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....I wonder why......


Jul 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
I can only think of one thing that is maybe common, and that's validation.

Other than that, there is nothing else.

Plus, there is a trade off on encapsulation as well and not to mention
reliabilty and maintenance.

Having code HERE and THERE amounts to "spaghetti" code.

Any custom code that is called more than once is also a single point of
failure and also each and every web page that uses it must be tested for
Quality Assurance. It seems like the time saved in hand coding changes are
easily lost in QA. Then is this myth about the "2 second maintenance
change" that never, ever is really 2 seconds.
"Jeff Levinson [mcsd]" <je***********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:03****************************@phx.gbl...
Also, there's one thing that you're missing - the service
oriented architecture. If you place code in the code
behind page, it can't be called from another process
without loading up the entire web page, transferring to
that site, etc. Using middle tier logic enables you to
hold common services for use across many applications.
It's not just all based on database issues.

Jeff Levinson

Author of "Building Client/Server Applications with
VB.NET: An Example Driven Approach"
-----Original Message-----
Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for the WEB?
(NOTE: I said, WEB, NOT WINDOWS.

DON'T shoot your mouth off if you don't understand the

difference.)

I hear only one reason and that's to switch a database

from SQL Server to
Oracle or DB2 or vice versa... and that's it.... And a

lot of these
enterprises don't need it as they already know what

database they are going
to use and they don't plan on switching in and out

database in the first
place, NOR can they afford to in the first place

Nobody switches databases everyday yet Microsoft and

MVP's are recommending
these so called best practices for every single .NET

implementation for the
enterprise or the mom and pop....Sort of like Windows

Advanced Server and
Windows Server....everybody's got to have Advanced

server on their
LAPTOP.....

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST

before recommending
any best practices.

Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that

can be easily
contained in the code behind.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-

tier architecture
for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of

practices from DNA using
COM and .asp pages.....

3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new

technology, .NET, that
has better and more simplier ways of doing things.

I say there is some hidden motive (like job security)

for making things more
complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-

Tier.

There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft

employees who never
question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the

best way.......

It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things

are going slow.....I
wonder why......


.

Jul 19 '05 #5

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#l**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Reasons for a 3-tier achitecture for the WEB?
(NOTE: I said, WEB, NOT WINDOWS.

DON'T shoot your mouth off if you don't understand the difference.)

I hear only one reason and that's to switch a database from SQL Server to
Oracle or DB2 or vice versa... and that's it.... And a lot of these
enterprises don't need it as they already know what database they are going to use and they don't plan on switching in and out database in the first
place, NOR can they afford to in the first place

Nobody switches databases everyday yet Microsoft and MVP's are recommending these so called best practices for every single .NET implementation for the enterprise or the mom and pop....Sort of like Windows Advanced Server and
Windows Server....everybody's got to have Advanced server on their
LAPTOP.....

If you had sold a product to companies, you'll easily find out that the
database implementation is not always as you had planned. The same product
can be be deployed in different companies using different RDBMS products
(well, if you don't want to, you've just limited yourself to a few clients).
Not to mention those "Mom and Pop" shops that can only afford access, and
later on outgrow the system and would demand a robust RDBMS. Well, that's
one reason. In some cases (specially tracing and logging), the persistent
store is not always a database. It can be a flat file, your email service
or logging objects in windows. Wouldn't you rather write a design where you
can just "switch" your application to use any of these objects that logs
information differently. I know you're thinking, why in the world would you
choose to log information in a flat file when you have a database or
whatever. Depending on who you are... in today's distributed
envinronments, technical support can be in far flung India while the program
is running in Iraq. Are you going to send the entire database image to them
so they can analyze a problem that occurred in the last 5 minutes? I can
think of so many reasons why you should separate your "Data Layer" from the
other "Layers."
I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before recommending any best practices.

I agree on this one but this does not have any bearing on your question of
"3 Tier Architecture."
Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easily
contained in the code behind.

Again, imagine an application where you have to write an interface for PDA's
and full browser like I.E. Coding the business rules for pages that supply
information in a PDA and another for I.E. is just too much to do. I don't
know about you, but I would rather spend more time upgrading my system than
doing interfaces (with built in business rules) so many times, depending on
how many client interfaces I have to deal with. Just consider if you have
to write a "Touch Tone" interface to your application as well.
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-tier architecture
for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA using
COM and .asp pages.....

This idea was definitely not from Microsoft. But the idea behind n-tier
architecture is code reuse. Unless, you haven't heard of it.
3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET, that has better and more simplier ways of doing things.

N-Tier development is an architectural design that allows a development team
to work together by establishing standards before the first code is ever
written. That way, you can avoid the saying, "Too many chefs spoils the
broth."
I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making things more complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-Tier.

Even in non n-tier designs, Job security has always been a motive. It isn't
even hidden anymore. Don't you think so? I wonder why so many people are
still in denial that job security is a goal.
There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who never
question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best way.......

That's because it's a proven "practice." I don't even call it a design
anymore. Code behind leads to too much duplicate code all over the
application. But since you prefer to do things the long way... good luck
investing more time in writing a simple "logon" screen. By the way, the
tools that you get out there to write "components" are based on the very
n-tier design that you don't agree with. Have you noticed that they work
with almost every DB out there? I wonder why?
It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....I
wonder why......

You know, there are other tools out there you can use, some are even free...
but, they too have been centered on n-tier development. I suggest you try
J2EE. You'll see the real power of n-Tier design. It's even amazing how
they've put away with proprietary SQL code.


Jul 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
comments inline below
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If you had sold a product to companies, you'll easily find out that the
database implementation is not always as you had planned. The same product can be be deployed in different companies using different RDBMS products
(well, if you don't want to, you've just limited yourself to a few clients). Not to mention those "Mom and Pop" shops that can only afford access, and
later on outgrow the system and would demand a robust RDBMS. Well, that's
one reason. In some cases (specially tracing and logging), the persistent
store is not always a database. It can be a flat file, your email service
or logging objects in windows. Wouldn't you rather write a design where you can just "switch" your application to use any of these objects that logs
information differently. I know you're thinking, why in the world would you choose to log information in a flat file when you have a database or
whatever. Depending on who you are... in today's distributed
envinronments, technical support can be in far flung India while the program is running in Iraq. Are you going to send the entire database image to them so they can analyze a problem that occurred in the last 5 minutes? I can
think of so many reasons why you should separate your "Data Layer" from the other "Layers."
still weak arguments....FLAT FILE...come ON? TO INDIA? EXCUSE me...that's
NO reason.
Backup the database and zip it up and send it over there...what's the
difference?
These points are simply Weird and don't occur in real life.
Mom and Pop on access....just have them install MSDE then?....the amount of
effort to SWITCH is total NONSENSE as you could have just had them switch to
MSDE.......They, the client are happy and so are you.
Getting a Mom and Pop to buy your enterprise app is simply improbable as
they can't afford it....YET, if they could afford it, why would they use
access?

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before recommending
any best practices.


I agree on this one but this does not have any bearing on your question of
"3 Tier Architecture."
Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easily
contained in the code behind.


Again, imagine an application where you have to write an interface for

PDA's and full browser like I.E. Coding the business rules for pages that supply information in a PDA and another for I.E. is just too much to do. I don't
know about you, but I would rather spend more time upgrading my system than doing interfaces (with built in business rules) so many times, depending on how many client interfaces I have to deal with. Just consider if you have
to write a "Touch Tone" interface to your application as well.

I would like to know if anyone BUYS stuff off of a PDA like they do a Web
Site shopping cart.
Can you really shop around and surf with a PDA....just look at how small the
screen is....people have enough trouble with 640x-480 now, I can't imagine
what it would be like for a PDA.

Just any device can display information doesn't mean it's going to have or
need a set of complex business rules in the first place. ANYTHING that
complex, you got to ask yourself if the customer is going to really buy
something OR spend time filling out a form on a PDA...YIKES!

Second, it complete poor design practice to have the same set of business
rules as that would be a single point of failure anyway...and the PDA
business requirements are going to be TOTALLY different then a Web Site's
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-tier architecture for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA using COM and .asp pages.....
This idea was definitely not from Microsoft. But the idea behind n-tier
architecture is code reuse. Unless, you haven't heard of it.
OK, well who was it from then if not Microsoft?
3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET,

that
has better and more simplier ways of doing things.


N-Tier development is an architectural design that allows a development

team to work together by establishing standards before the first code is ever
written. That way, you can avoid the saying, "Too many chefs spoils the
broth."
2-Tier can easily do this....Internet and Intranet web sites have hundreds
of web pages where each set of web pages belong to a departments.
With N-Tier, you could like say have one module, but it needs to worked on
two different divisions. Say if it's the database module....what happens if
two people need access to the same time?
I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making things more
complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-Tier.


Even in non n-tier designs, Job security has always been a motive. It

isn't even hidden anymore. Don't you think so? I wonder why so many people are
still in denial that job security is a goal.
There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who never question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best way.......

That's because it's a proven "practice." I don't even call it a design
anymore. Code behind leads to too much duplicate code all over the
application. But since you prefer to do things the long way... good luck
investing more time in writing a simple "logon" screen. By the way, the
tools that you get out there to write "components" are based on the very
n-tier design that you don't agree with. Have you noticed that they work
with almost every DB out there? I wonder why?


The only thing I see proven are the number of failed enterprise projects
like CRM and ERP.

CRM especially as they are always in the news getting sued for a failed
implementation.

ERP...well that takes at least a year of dev, and by that time, the
technology has changed.

IF YOU notice, the POST said WEB, NOT WINDOWS.....Looking at the TOOLS, like
VS.NET are Windows apps that have a really long beta test and are updated
once a year....big difference here.
It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....I wonder why......


You know, there are other tools out there you can use, some are even

free... but, they too have been centered on n-tier development. I suggest you try
J2EE. You'll see the real power of n-Tier design. It's even amazing how
they've put away with proprietary SQL code.


J2EE!!!! Aghhhh....have you looked at their code.....abstraction after
abstraction after abstraction.....YES, you are right, that's N-TIER...where
the "N" stands for "Not enough" Tiers....It's no wonder why J2EE is so slow
and take forever to implement.

Jul 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
Inline...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O4**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I can only think of one thing that is maybe common, and that's validation.

Other than that, there is nothing else.
There are plenty of services that can be shared beyond simple validation.
Plus, there is a trade off on encapsulation as well and not to mention
reliabilty and maintenance.
You are just arguing in favour of keeping business logic in a separate tier
from the UI logic.
Having code HERE and THERE amounts to "spaghetti" code.
Ditto.
Any custom code that is called more than once is also a single point of
failure and also each and every web page that uses it must be tested for
Quality Assurance. It seems like the time saved in hand coding changes are easily lost in QA. Then is this myth about the "2 second maintenance
change" that never, ever is really 2 seconds.


You've completely lost me here. How would you code an application so that
every single web page _didn't_ need to be tested individually? With your
"single point of failure" couldn't you stop testing when it did fail, and
then fix it before you go and test it again from a different page knowing
that it's just going to fail again?

Here's a real example of why encapsulating business logic in a single
location is a good thing. I worked on a site that had to validate addresses.
Some genius decided that the only valid postal codes were the one's that had
5 digits. Brilliant decision for an international site. When I got to
changing the business logic to allow international postal codes I discovered
(over a period of about 2 weeks tracking down all the places that a postal
code was entered or used) that the team of consultants had put the
validation logic in the database, in the data access layer, in the business
logic layer, in the UI code and in client-side code. I should note that the
address wasn't being validated multiple times because they only used one of
those layers to do the validation depending on where the address was being
entered. Not only was the logic in 5 different locations, they used
different rules (i.e. some allowed anything and long as it wasn't blank,
some numeric only, some specific alpha-numeric patterns and sometimes it
only required it for US addresses).

You say I have a single point of failure, I say you have multiple places to
completely stuff things up.

Maybe you should come back to this discussion after you've got a bit of
experience developing and maintaining a non-trivial web application.

Colin
Jul 19 '05 #8

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:e8**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
comments inline below
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
If you had sold a product to companies, you'll easily find out that the
database implementation is not always as you had planned. The same product
can be be deployed in different companies using different RDBMS products
(well, if you don't want to, you've just limited yourself to a few

clients).
Not to mention those "Mom and Pop" shops that can only afford access, and
later on outgrow the system and would demand a robust RDBMS. Well, that's one reason. In some cases (specially tracing and logging), the persistent store is not always a database. It can be a flat file, your email service or logging objects in windows. Wouldn't you rather write a design where

you
can just "switch" your application to use any of these objects that logs
information differently. I know you're thinking, why in the world would

you
choose to log information in a flat file when you have a database or
whatever. Depending on who you are... in today's distributed
envinronments, technical support can be in far flung India while the

program
is running in Iraq. Are you going to send the entire database image to

them
so they can analyze a problem that occurred in the last 5 minutes? I can think of so many reasons why you should separate your "Data Layer" from

the
other "Layers."


still weak arguments....FLAT FILE...come ON? TO INDIA? EXCUSE

me...that's NO reason.
Maybe this is the reason why you're looking for attention. Your poor
methodologies are chasing your clients away from you and your employer finds
your work weak stuff!!! In case you haven't noticed, most of the IT jobs
are going to India and South East Asia.
Backup the database and zip it up and send it over there...what's the
difference?
These points are simply Weird and don't occur in real life.
Are you going to zip up a database that's over 300 GB worth of information.
It shows how poor your experience is when it comes to "BIG" applications.
Mom and Pop on access....just have them install MSDE then?....the amount of effort to SWITCH is total NONSENSE as you could have just had them switch to MSDE.......They, the client are happy and so are you.
You think they'd be able to easily use MSDE for their own internal reasons
where they decide not use your help? Most of the mom and pop shops I know
create their own "simple" applications based on the files that you give
them.
Getting a Mom and Pop to buy your enterprise app is simply improbable as
they can't afford it....YET, if they could afford it, why would they use
access?
If you know how much it costs to get MS SQL server, you'd probably
understand why they want to save every way they can.

I mean come on. Let Microsoft fix their own stuff FIRST before recommending
any best practices.


I agree on this one but this does not have any bearing on your question of "3 Tier Architecture."
Also see no reason to have a business logic tier as that can be easily
contained in the code behind.

That's because you're probably narrow minded that your software engineering
background needs an overhaul. Soon, you'd be claiming, what's the use of
Object Oriented Programming. Compare to straight procedural language,
they're slow. But, that's you...

Again, imagine an application where you have to write an interface for

PDA's
and full browser like I.E. Coding the business rules for pages that

supply
information in a PDA and another for I.E. is just too much to do. I don't know about you, but I would rather spend more time upgrading my system

than
doing interfaces (with built in business rules) so many times, depending

on
how many client interfaces I have to deal with. Just consider if you have to write a "Touch Tone" interface to your application as well.

I would like to know if anyone BUYS stuff off of a PDA like they do a Web
Site shopping cart.


Hey, I do even worse with my mobile phone. I check movie times in it. It's
probable that you are not that "connected" and versed with today's
technology.
Can you really shop around and surf with a PDA....just look at how small the screen is....people have enough trouble with 640x-480 now, I can't imagine
what it would be like for a PDA.

PDA's and tablets are now being used in many modern hospitals. They allow
patients to fill in forms from tablets. Doctors are hooked up to wireless
networks and their PDA's work as an extra tool to keep on top of things.
HECK, I use a PDA too and have some of my applications expose interfaces in
such devices. So at least, there's one who can shop around or surf with a
PDA.
Just any device can display information doesn't mean it's going to have or
need a set of complex business rules in the first place. ANYTHING that
complex, you got to ask yourself if the customer is going to really buy
something OR spend time filling out a form on a PDA...YIKES!

Second, it complete poor design practice to have the same set of business
rules as that would be a single point of failure anyway...and the PDA
business requirements are going to be TOTALLY different then a Web Site's

It may be a single point of failure to the uneducated. But once QA has been
done, it's guaranteed to work anywhere. If you put the same logic in every
page you have, if the business rule is false... good luck changing it all
over the place. And your single point of failure becomes "multiple" points
of failure.

QUESTION OF THE DAY:
I would really like to know, who's idea it was to have 3-tier architecture for .NET Web Pages. All I see is a carry over of practices from DNA using COM and .asp pages.....
This idea was definitely not from Microsoft. But the idea behind n-tier
architecture is code reuse. Unless, you haven't heard of it.
OK, well who was it from then if not Microsoft?


Definitely not yours....

3-tier is using the same OLD broken tools when a new technology, .NET, that
has better and more simplier ways of doing things.


N-Tier development is an architectural design that allows a development

team
to work together by establishing standards before the first code is ever
written. That way, you can avoid the saying, "Too many chefs spoils the
broth."


2-Tier can easily do this....Internet and Intranet web sites have hundreds
of web pages where each set of web pages belong to a departments.
With N-Tier, you could like say have one module, but it needs to worked on
two different divisions. Say if it's the database module....what happens

if two people need access to the same time?

Even if it was 2-Tier, you'd still have to stop the other division from
overwriting the changes of the other one. This is why code repositories are
used. Unless, then again... you have had no experience using them. In
case you haven't, I suggest you read about Microsoft Visual Sourcesafe...
or if you're brave enough, use CVS. Although, you should worry more about
how you're going to control your code's logic once the requirements of your
client (assuming you still have one) changes.

I say there is some hidden motive (like job security) for making
things
more
complicated and LESS performing when using 3-Tier or N-Tier.

Even in non n-tier designs, Job security has always been a motive. It

isn't
even hidden anymore. Don't you think so? I wonder why so many people are still in denial that job security is a goal.
There are a LOT of mind-numb robot MVP's and Microsoft employees who never question if a particular and well-entrenched way is the best
way.......


That's because it's a proven "practice." I don't even call it a design
anymore. Code behind leads to too much duplicate code all over the
application. But since you prefer to do things the long way... good

luck investing more time in writing a simple "logon" screen. By the way, the
tools that you get out there to write "components" are based on the very
n-tier design that you don't agree with. Have you noticed that they work with almost every DB out there? I wonder why?


The only thing I see proven are the number of failed enterprise projects
like CRM and ERP.

CRM especially as they are always in the news getting sued for a failed
implementation.


That's probably because the developers were old school like you in those
failed projects.

ERP...well that takes at least a year of dev, and by that time, the
technology has changed.

That's probably because they wrote too much code like you did in your
applications and cannot reuse exisiting ones. Maybe they did reuse it but
in a more "pre-historic" way of cut and paste.
IF YOU notice, the POST said WEB, NOT WINDOWS.....Looking at the TOOLS, like VS.NET are Windows apps that have a really long beta test and are updated
once a year....big difference here.


So? what's your point? Even in the same web application the same data can
be presented differently but the same business rules apply. A human
resources page might require information about the employee's personal stuff
and "salary." The payroll department might only be able to edit the
"salary." Both departments must still abide by the same rules of the
company even if information is shown using different web pages. Of course,
you can write the logic in both pages rather than encapsulating it in a
class and using that class to enforce the business rules. Doesn't the later
sound easier? As far as i'm concerned if my methods exceed 20 lines of
code, there's something wrong in my design.
It's been 2 years and Mr. Bill is still saying things are going slow.....I wonder why......

You know, there are other tools out there you can use, some are even

free...
but, they too have been centered on n-tier development. I suggest you try J2EE. You'll see the real power of n-Tier design. It's even amazing how they've put away with proprietary SQL code.


J2EE!!!! Aghhhh....have you looked at their code.....abstraction after
abstraction after abstraction.....YES, you are right, that's

N-TIER...where the "N" stands for "Not enough" Tiers....It's no wonder why J2EE is so slow and take forever to implement.


Yes I have looked into a J2EE code and coded some myself. I find some to be
pure genious and others not too bright. It's probably why you never decided
to expand on these technologies because yours might be the later.


Jul 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
INLINE BELOW
"Terje A. Bergesen" <te****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd*************************@posting.google.co m...
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message news:<e8**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...


...PMJI...but...
so they can analyze a problem that occurred in the last 5 minutes? I can think of so many reasons why you should separate your "Data Layer" from
the
other "Layers."


still weak arguments....FLAT FILE...come ON?


No, this is not at all a weak argument. When building an app you can
never know in advance what storage your clients will ask for. In my
experience you will find shops that mandate one particular (down to
the version and patch level) database and others who only care about
the total cost. The first may be Oracle (typically for large installs)
the second would be serviced well with PostrgreSQL or MySQL (if your
app can live within the limits of these).

Tying your business logic to a specific DB will make this highly
difficult.

NOPE, Oracle people ASK for J2EE First, not .NET
PostgreSQL and MySQL ask for PERL first, not .NET

So, your analysis is for the few and rare cases.......



...
These points are simply Weird and don't occur in real life.
Depends on your daily life I assume. They occur every day, with every
customer I talk to, in my life.

...
Getting a Mom and Pop to buy your enterprise app is simply improbable as
they can't afford it....YET,


Yes, now they can. .NET and J2EE (I see your disparaging comments later,
I'll deal with them there) allows this.
Again, imagine an application where you have to write an interface for
PDA's
...
I would like to know if anyone BUYS stuff off of a PDA like they do
a Web Site shopping cart.


Did you see the "imagine" part? Use your imagination. An enterprice app
developer will frequently find him self in a situation where he will be
asked to provide new DB connectivity, new vertical app connectivity and
new interfaces into his app. What if your customer has suppliers and
customers who agree to start doing business by exchanging XML docs? What
if your customer wants 1-800-MY-BIZZ access into the app you wrote?

IMAGINE???? SUN, IBM and MICROSOFT have been imagining for 3 or 5 years
with billions and billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of
engineers and programmers. Contest after contest......NOTHING.....

People get in a CAR to DRIVE, NOT SURF the .NET.

Had the thought ever occured to you that people want to get away from the
..NET once in a while....

TABLETS will easily take over PDA's as they can get a standard web
page.....PDA will always have a small screen and will always be hard to
use...... HECK, IF YOU want PROOF, switch your monitor back to 640x480 and
start surfing at that resolution...see how long that lasts...... NOW, stick
that PDA in front of your eyes..is that even going to be near the 640x480
surfing experience....NO WAY.....
Second, it complete poor design practice to have the same set of
business rules as that would be a single point of failure anyway...
Eh, no. It would not be complete poor design. Having *one* set of
business rules in your app is something I think they teach in computers
101 these days. It makes 100% sense. I would be so strong-worded as
to say that *not* seperating business logic from presentation and
storage is complete idiocy.
This idea was definitely not from Microsoft. But the idea behind
n-tier architecture is code reuse. Unless, you haven't heard of it.


OK, well who was it from then if not Microsoft?


The 3-tier architecture was not dreamed up by Microsoft, it came about
from years and years of experience with 2-tier architectures and their
complete failure to work over time.
2-Tier can easily do this...


Not over time, this is why the sound idea of a 3-tiered architecture
was created. It was developed by people with years and years of
experience in the field, and solves the real problems they have been
facing over the past 30 or so years.


OMG!!!! NON-ANSWER......Just because you have 30 years of experience
doesn't give you the gift of innovation or creativity.

Most innovation comes from BEGINNERS, NEWBIES, who have ZIPPO
EXPERIENCE...Why? Cause they haven't been INDOCTRINATED or BRAIN WASHED
with the same old tired methods.

Let's run down the history of great inventors and see what is what and who
did what......

WHAT A STUPID ANSWER!!!!!

...
J2EE!!!! Aghhhh....have you looked at their code.....abstraction after
abstraction after abstraction.....YES, you are right, that's
N-TIER...where the "N" stands for "Not enough" Tiers....It's no wonder why J2EE is so slow and take forever to implement.


Well, it does appear that you have very little experience, and it also
seems you have very little software design and development education
and experience. J2EE apps are far from slow to develop, and if you know
what you do (i.e. don't have millions of Entity Beans accessed by the
remote clients) then they have excellent performance.

J2EE are slow to develop? in comparison to what, machine language or
assembly?

The only thing you have very little of, is the humility to admit that your
are completely wrong.

Typical arrogant J2EE / OOP programmer......


--
Terje

Jul 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
I want to add that the Windows OS (with thousand and thousand programmers
and software engineers who are supposedly the best of the best, and YEARS
and YEARS of man hours) STILL needs a weekly service pack.......

Oh, and the BIG Service Packs.....DON'T install them because THEY BREAK
already working systems....how many times has that happened and whose
architecture was that? Where is that QA team?

So, are the architects of n-tier development with 30+ years of experience,
the same people who produced these service packs?

'nough said
Jul 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
One other thing.

Resume OR Acronym Chest THUMPERS need to watch themselves very carefully or
else someone might knock those acronym chips off their shoulder.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I want to add that the Windows OS (with thousand and thousand programmers
and software engineers who are supposedly the best of the best, and YEARS
and YEARS of man hours) STILL needs a weekly service pack.......

Oh, and the BIG Service Packs.....DON'T install them because THEY BREAK
already working systems....how many times has that happened and whose
architecture was that? Where is that QA team?

So, are the architects of n-tier development with 30+ years of experience,
the same people who produced these service packs?

'nough said

Jul 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO or NEED,
FIRST.

REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton
FAILURE

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY did what
people really NEEDED to be done.
NOW, based on that fiasco,
Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY STUFF

.....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO HOURS
RESEARCHING PRICES!!!

I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell
phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when it
starts beeping either.

Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those tiny 5"
portable DVD players.
I wonder WHY??????

Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help
you arrogant N-Tier advocates.

Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on those
Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP... which is NOT
365 days a year.
To all your N-Tier resume THUMPERS, have a nice day.


"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
One other thing.

Resume OR Acronym Chest THUMPERS need to watch themselves very carefully or else someone might knock those acronym chips off their shoulder.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I want to add that the Windows OS (with thousand and thousand programmers and software engineers who are supposedly the best of the best, and YEARS and YEARS of man hours) STILL needs a weekly service pack.......

Oh, and the BIG Service Packs.....DON'T install them because THEY BREAK
already working systems....how many times has that happened and whose
architecture was that? Where is that QA team?

So, are the architects of n-tier development with 30+ years of experience, the same people who produced these service packs?

'nough said


Jul 19 '05 #13

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO or NEED,
FIRST.

For your information, that's exactly what the MS Architecture team is doing.
There are only a few of your kind who still believes 2-tier designs are the
way to go. But for the majority of us, we see the value of N-Tier
development. Why don't you just do COBOL development. But wait, oh yeah...
i have had a few experiences in it, and even they have a concept of
"modules." And these programs have been around even before I wrote my first
program in BASICA.
REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton
FAILURE

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY did what
people really NEEDED to be done.

The reason N-Tier is used for PDA interfaces is because, the business rules
are not used only for PDA's. These companies also offer full browser
compliant web pages. (And sometimes, thick clients.)

NOW, based on that fiasco,
Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY STUFF

....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO HOURS
RESEARCHING PRICES!!!

Is that all you know about the function of the internet? To buy stuff? How
weak is your sense of entrepreneurship? The internet is more than
researching prices. People use their wireless PDA to check on stock prices
(specially those who are always on the go). Others use the internet to
browse their emails. In today's mobile world, everyone needs to be
connected. From my experience, the big wigs don't like to carry bulky
notebooks.
I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell
phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when it
starts beeping either.

Again, see note above. The internet is not just for buying things. It's
also for promoting articles and other business models.
Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those tiny 5"
portable DVD players.
I wonder WHY??????

Maybe you're not in with the current vehicles. Why are most of them being
equipped with portable DVD players? And most trips take longer than that
(or movies). But, again this has no bearing on the N-TIER topic so I won't
give it my two cents.
Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help
you arrogant N-Tier advocates.

Sure, fit that in your Chevy Tahoe... let's see if you can have the proper
position of watching it.
Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on those
Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP... which is NOT 365 days a year.


Ever heard of docking stations? Most IT professionals, and even managers,
don't have a desktop and a notebook. Maintaining one PC is hard enough,
imagine if you had to transfer your data everytime you're on the go?
To all your N-Tier resume THUMPERS, have a nice day.


"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OL**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
One other thing.

Resume OR Acronym Chest THUMPERS need to watch themselves very carefully

or
else someone might knock those acronym chips off their shoulder.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I want to add that the Windows OS (with thousand and thousand programmers and software engineers who are supposedly the best of the best, and YEARS and YEARS of man hours) STILL needs a weekly service pack.......

Oh, and the BIG Service Packs.....DON'T install them because THEY BREAK already working systems....how many times has that happened and whose
architecture was that? Where is that QA team?

So, are the architects of n-tier development with 30+ years of experience, the same people who produced these service packs?

'nough said

And I suppose your programs don't break? enough said...



Jul 19 '05 #14

P: n/a

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO or NEED, FIRST.

For your information, that's exactly what the MS Architecture team is

doing. There are only a few of your kind who still believes 2-tier designs are the way to go. But for the majority of us, we see the value of N-Tier
development. Why don't you just do COBOL development. But wait, oh yeah... i have had a few experiences in it, and even they have a concept of
"modules." And these programs have been around even before I wrote my first program in BASICA.
NOPE. YOU DID NOT GIVE A TECHNICAL REASON. COBOL is STILL in use today
after some 30 years.

ALSO, your concept of Modules is Twisted in the wrong direction. Look at
the News....all of this N-Tier is still producing GLITCHES here and there,
again and again. So CAlled SOFTWARE Upgrades are the once producing
glitches....WHY is this SO? I thought N-Tier wasn't supposed to produce
glitches...Where is all that QA?

Look at all the Service Packs that have fixed one things and broken
another.....Hmmm Seems like your MODULES are designed improperly.

Look at just today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Trading firm....must have N-Tier......didn't seem to work there...I wonder
how much time and money was lost there....Imagine if that was a
hospital......
REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton FAILURE

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY did what people really NEEDED to be done.

The reason N-Tier is used for PDA interfaces is because, the business

rules are not used only for PDA's. These companies also offer full browser
compliant web pages. (And sometimes, thick clients.)

If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier programmers,
gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
PDA's????????????????????????????????

NOW, based on that fiasco,
Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY STUFF

....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO HOURS RESEARCHING PRICES!!!


Is that all you know about the function of the internet? To buy stuff?

How weak is your sense of entrepreneurship? The internet is more than
researching prices. People use their wireless PDA to check on stock prices (specially those who are always on the go). Others use the internet to
browse their emails. In today's mobile world, everyone needs to be
connected. From my experience, the big wigs don't like to carry bulky
notebooks.

WEAK. WEAK. WEAK.
IS this the same silly Entrepreneurship thinking from MBA's and N-Tier
Programmer and C++ Thumpers that created Pets.com...thinking that people
will pay the extra shipping for a 50lb bag of dog food to ship
cross-country?

What do you or any programmer in general know about entrepreneurship? Look
at the DOT.BOMB...there were a lot of people there with 2 or 3 or 4 letters
after their signature.......

How about Loud Cloud? WebVan? All N-Tier with 30 years of experience
there......

The list goes on and on.....

I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell
phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when it
starts beeping either.

Again, see note above. The internet is not just for buying things. It's
also for promoting articles and other business models.

The phone can be said to be PROMOTING things and business models...... Did
you ever hear of telemarketing?

Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those tiny 5"
portable DVD players.
I wonder WHY??????

Maybe you're not in with the current vehicles. Why are most of them being
equipped with portable DVD players? And most trips take longer than that
(or movies). But, again this has no bearing on the N-TIER topic so I

won't give it my two cents.
I has a BUSINESS bearing......PDA's have a 2 inch screen......Just how many
people want to stare at a 2 inch screen for 2 hours

DVD's of the Kids to keep them occupied...The adults are usually
driving......If you want to watch The Lion King that's great.

Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help you arrogant N-Tier advocates.

Sure, fit that in your Chevy Tahoe... let's see if you can have the

proper position of watching it.
Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on those
Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP... which is

NOT
365 days a year.


Ever heard of docking stations? Most IT professionals, and even managers,
don't have a desktop and a notebook. Maintaining one PC is hard enough,
imagine if you had to transfer your data everytime you're on the go?


So this justifies N-Tier......? I don't think so.

Jul 19 '05 #15

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO or NEED, FIRST.

For your information, that's exactly what the MS Architecture team is

doing.
There are only a few of your kind who still believes 2-tier designs are

the
way to go. But for the majority of us, we see the value of N-Tier
development. Why don't you just do COBOL development. But wait, oh

yeah...
i have had a few experiences in it, and even they have a concept of
"modules." And these programs have been around even before I wrote my

first
program in BASICA.


NOPE. YOU DID NOT GIVE A TECHNICAL REASON. COBOL is STILL in use today
after some 30 years.


I said, even COBOL introduced modules where there are modules that help
developers do data access (i.e. access a DB2 database or VSAM files and in
some cases XML from other systems). And I never said, COBOL was shelved by
IT groups. I said, even now... COBOL is in used. Only that it matured and
accepted the idea of separating presentation code from business logic and
the data tier from business logic through the use of modules. READ
CAREFULLY!!!
ALSO, your concept of Modules is Twisted in the wrong direction. Look at
the News....all of this N-Tier is still producing GLITCHES here and there,
again and again. So CAlled SOFTWARE Upgrades are the once producing
glitches....WHY is this SO? I thought N-Tier wasn't supposed to produce
glitches...Where is all that QA?

I've never seen a program that didn't have any problems. As they say, the
only bug free program is an obsolete one. Even if there were no bugs,
business rules change over time. That's why separating the business logic i
s so important in MODERN software architecture.
Look at all the Service Packs that have fixed one things and broken
another.....Hmmm Seems like your MODULES are designed improperly.

And so are some 2-tier design system. Now are we discussing N-Tier design
vs. 2-Tier design or QA?
Look at just today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Trading firm....must have N-Tier......didn't seem to work there...I wonder
how much time and money was lost there....Imagine if that was a
hospital......


Well, just for your information... I know that the hospital I work for uses
N-Tier architecture. I don't have to imagine coz I know it works.
Occassionaly, we have to change the business rules because of some contract
changes and whatsoever. Fortunately for us, we had our business logic
separate from our presentation that we didn't have to do it in every page!!!
Our turn around is fast that a change can be done in less that two weeks and
that would include extensive QA!!!
REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton FAILURE

What's stupid is thinking that N-Tier is used inside a PDA. I think I have
an idea of what you think about N-Tier. Just a wild guess, you probably
think all of the modules/assemblies run in one machine which is operated by
the user. The business tier is located on a server. The only tier that's
on the PDA is the GUI. Now... what was that word again, "stupid?"
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY did what people really NEEDED to be done.

The reason N-Tier is used for PDA interfaces is because, the business

rules
are not used only for PDA's. These companies also offer full browser
compliant web pages. (And sometimes, thick clients.)

If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier programmers,
gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
PDA's????????????????????????????????


Again, see the note above with "STUPID" on it. You don't put the business
logic on the PDA!!!
NOW, based on that fiasco,
Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY STUFF

....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO HOURS RESEARCHING PRICES!!!

Is that all you know about the function of the internet? To buy stuff?

How
weak is your sense of entrepreneurship? The internet is more than
researching prices. People use their wireless PDA to check on stock

prices
(specially those who are always on the go). Others use the internet to
browse their emails. In today's mobile world, everyone needs to be
connected. From my experience, the big wigs don't like to carry bulky
notebooks.

WEAK. WEAK. WEAK.
IS this the same silly Entrepreneurship thinking from MBA's and N-Tier
Programmer and C++ Thumpers that created Pets.com...thinking that people
will pay the extra shipping for a 50lb bag of dog food to ship
cross-country?


Well, in case you didn't know... it was not the architecture that caused
these businesses to fail but rather the business model adopted by these "DOT
COM" companies. I know of a several DOT COM's that adopted 2-Tier design
(i.e. technology through Vignette Story Server ver 4.x and below) that
failed and laid off all their workers.
What do you or any programmer in general know about entrepreneurship? Look at the DOT.BOMB...there were a lot of people there with 2 or 3 or 4 letters after their signature.......

That's something I'm not willing to disclose to you... But, trust me... I
do know a lot. Just to give you an example, because on N-Tier development,
IBM can develop software using teams from the US and a bulk of programmer in
India (or any part of the world for that matter) without clobbering each
other's deliverables. That's because, teams can be divided into tasks to
handle different pieces and modules of an enterprise application. It's
possible to issue releases after releases without breaking existing
components in production. Failures in patches are natural for a software
development cycle. Or have you not experienced that yourself. I would
think that your programs are so perfect they never had any bugs once the
came into production. Or, that you've actually foreseen ALL the needs of
your clients that you don't have to change the business rules in your
application. N-Tier development and deploying patches are not JUST for
FIXING bugs.
How about Loud Cloud? WebVan? All N-Tier with 30 years of experience
there......

The list goes on and on.....


Yeah? What about ebay? And no matter how much you despise Microsoft, it's
still out there doing great business. I think it just came up with a good
business report to its shareholders. But you see, there are other websites
out there that use N-Tier development and are still in production. So, what
are you blabbering about companies using N-Tier design going out of
business. It's all about the business model and how you handle your
finance. Just to answer your question in advance... Yes, their stock
prices went down. But which company did not?

I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell
phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when it starts beeping either.

Again, see note above. The internet is not just for buying things. It's
also for promoting articles and other business models.

The phone can be said to be PROMOTING things and business models......

Did you ever hear of telemarketing?

Telemarketing is now due to fail. check http://www.donotcall.gov. Again,
what does that have to do with 2-Tier design against 3-Tier design?
Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those tiny 5" portable DVD players.
I wonder WHY??????

Maybe you're not in with the current vehicles. Why are most of them being equipped with portable DVD players? And most trips take longer than that (or movies). But, again this has no bearing on the N-TIER topic so I

won't
give it my two cents.


I has a BUSINESS bearing......PDA's have a 2 inch screen......Just how

many people want to stare at a 2 inch screen for 2 hours

Problem is, you probably haven't been out much. Or have you reported to
work lately? Maybe you should ask your boss if they've got one. Out here,
almost every manager has one. But, that's not even related to 2-Tier design
and 3-Tier design.
DVD's of the Kids to keep them occupied...The adults are usually
driving......If you want to watch The Lion King that's great.

Well, even some adults have their own toys. Last I know, i've never seen a
52" surround sound GPS screen. Those also came out in a 5 inch screen. And
even their hardware is designed using the methodology of N-Tier development.
You can upgrade your software, but don't need to buy a new unit. It's
analogous to changing the business rules, but keeping the GUI look the same.
Then again, I don't expect you to understand it coz, you'd probably think
all the software is built into the GPS just like the PDA having a "business"
tier. Or do you also want to fit in a "300Gb" database in a PDA too? Or
maybe a desktop application in one workstation (just to justify your "No
PDA" attitude) which is kind of "STUPID."
Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help you arrogant N-Tier advocates.

Sure, fit that in your Chevy Tahoe... let's see if you can have the

proper
position of watching it.
Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on those Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP... which

is NOT
365 days a year.


Ever heard of docking stations? Most IT professionals, and even managers, don't have a desktop and a notebook. Maintaining one PC is hard enough,
imagine if you had to transfer your data everytime you're on the go?


So this justifies N-Tier......? I don't think so.


You're the one who brought up the topic of laptops (which are called
notebooks nowaday). I just forgot to ask you the relevance of "Notebooks"
in N-Tier development.

By the way, don't give up... keep it coming. I'm willing to entertain your
ideas no matter how "stupid" they get. But if you really hate N-Tier
development... stick to device driver development. Now, those are programs
that don't need N-Tier development. But as your topic said, "WEB."

Jul 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
Still missing one important aspect.

Search and replace works just as good as OOP...

It's a proven tool that applications like Word, NotePad, and even VS.NET
have built in....

I could easily have a bunch of the SAME methods all over the place that can
be easily "SEARCH and REPLACED" a LOT FASTER than the OOP abstracted, all in
one place N-Tier or 3-Tier design.

I guess since it's SO simple to use, OOP people don't even want to mention
it because they have less work or would be out of a job...wouldn't want the
manager to know it was so simple would you.

Nevertheless, no one here said business logic was built directly INTO the
PDA. BUT Gurus, authors, MVP's, etc keep touting it in the Architecture of
Web Sites, server side, by saying, "Oohhhhh, because we have a middle tier
and our business logic can easily work with "different" presentation
layers......Uhhhhh...did it ever occur to you that different presentation
layers mean totally different USER Needs???????? Translation.....a lot
simplier, (which means different) business logic layer.

THE FACT that YOU ACCEPT BUGS as a WAY of LIFE for SOFTWARE
means your NOT INNOVATIVE as YOU THINK YOU ARE.

WHERE IS THAT IMAGINATION YOU keep talking about???????

--------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS A RIDDLE FOR YOU
Full OOP = "fill in the blank here" = Full Plate of Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lot more where this came from.......
As we wait, there will be more revealed bugs, patches that break other
patches, and fixes that unfixes other fixes.

Oh well, so much for ENCAPSULATION when patches break other patches...but
then that's OK with you since you, Mr. INNOVATION, have accepted bugs as a
fact of life.



"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO or NEED,
> FIRST.
>

For your information, that's exactly what the MS Architecture team is

doing.
There are only a few of your kind who still believes 2-tier designs are
the
way to go. But for the majority of us, we see the value of N-Tier
development. Why don't you just do COBOL development. But wait, oh

yeah...
i have had a few experiences in it, and even they have a concept of
"modules." And these programs have been around even before I wrote my

first
program in BASICA.


NOPE. YOU DID NOT GIVE A TECHNICAL REASON. COBOL is STILL in use today
after some 30 years.


I said, even COBOL introduced modules where there are modules that help
developers do data access (i.e. access a DB2 database or VSAM files and in
some cases XML from other systems). And I never said, COBOL was shelved

by IT groups. I said, even now... COBOL is in used. Only that it matured and accepted the idea of separating presentation code from business logic and
the data tier from business logic through the use of modules. READ
CAREFULLY!!!
ALSO, your concept of Modules is Twisted in the wrong direction. Look at
the News....all of this N-Tier is still producing GLITCHES here and there, again and again. So CAlled SOFTWARE Upgrades are the once producing
glitches....WHY is this SO? I thought N-Tier wasn't supposed to produce
glitches...Where is all that QA?

I've never seen a program that didn't have any problems. As they say, the
only bug free program is an obsolete one. Even if there were no bugs,
business rules change over time. That's why separating the business logic

i s so important in MODERN software architecture.
Look at all the Service Packs that have fixed one things and broken
another.....Hmmm Seems like your MODULES are designed improperly.

And so are some 2-tier design system. Now are we discussing N-Tier design
vs. 2-Tier design or QA?
Look at just today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Trading firm....must have N-Tier......didn't seem to work there...I wonder how much time and money was lost there....Imagine if that was a
hospital......


Well, just for your information... I know that the hospital I work for

uses N-Tier architecture. I don't have to imagine coz I know it works.
Occassionaly, we have to change the business rules because of some contract changes and whatsoever. Fortunately for us, we had our business logic
separate from our presentation that we didn't have to do it in every page!!! Our turn around is fast that a change can be done in less that two weeks and that would include extensive QA!!!

> REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton
> FAILURE
>
What's stupid is thinking that N-Tier is used inside a PDA. I think I

have an idea of what you think about N-Tier. Just a wild guess, you probably
think all of the modules/assemblies run in one machine which is operated by the user. The business tier is located on a server. The only tier that's
on the PDA is the GUI. Now... what was that word again, "stupid?"
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
> BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY
did what
> people really NEEDED to be done.
>

The reason N-Tier is used for PDA interfaces is because, the business rules
are not used only for PDA's. These companies also offer full browser
compliant web pages. (And sometimes, thick clients.)

If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier programmers, gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
PDA's????????????????????????????????


Again, see the note above with "STUPID" on it. You don't put the business
logic on the PDA!!!
> NOW, based on that fiasco,
> Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY
STUFF >
> ....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO

HOURS
> RESEARCHING PRICES!!!
>

Is that all you know about the function of the internet? To buy stuff? How
weak is your sense of entrepreneurship? The internet is more than
researching prices. People use their wireless PDA to check on stock

prices
(specially those who are always on the go). Others use the internet

to browse their emails. In today's mobile world, everyone needs to be
connected. From my experience, the big wigs don't like to carry bulky
notebooks.

WEAK. WEAK. WEAK.
IS this the same silly Entrepreneurship thinking from MBA's and N-Tier
Programmer and C++ Thumpers that created Pets.com...thinking that people
will pay the extra shipping for a 50lb bag of dog food to ship
cross-country?


Well, in case you didn't know... it was not the architecture that caused
these businesses to fail but rather the business model adopted by these

"DOT COM" companies. I know of a several DOT COM's that adopted 2-Tier design
(i.e. technology through Vignette Story Server ver 4.x and below) that
failed and laid off all their workers.
What do you or any programmer in general know about entrepreneurship? Look
at the DOT.BOMB...there were a lot of people there with 2 or 3 or 4

letters
after their signature.......


That's something I'm not willing to disclose to you... But, trust me...

I do know a lot. Just to give you an example, because on N-Tier development, IBM can develop software using teams from the US and a bulk of programmer in India (or any part of the world for that matter) without clobbering each
other's deliverables. That's because, teams can be divided into tasks to
handle different pieces and modules of an enterprise application. It's
possible to issue releases after releases without breaking existing
components in production. Failures in patches are natural for a software
development cycle. Or have you not experienced that yourself. I would
think that your programs are so perfect they never had any bugs once the
came into production. Or, that you've actually foreseen ALL the needs of
your clients that you don't have to change the business rules in your
application. N-Tier development and deploying patches are not JUST for
FIXING bugs.
How about Loud Cloud? WebVan? All N-Tier with 30 years of experience
there......

The list goes on and on.....
Yeah? What about ebay? And no matter how much you despise Microsoft,

it's still out there doing great business. I think it just came up with a good
business report to its shareholders. But you see, there are other websites out there that use N-Tier development and are still in production. So, what are you blabbering about companies using N-Tier design going out of
business. It's all about the business model and how you handle your
finance. Just to answer your question in advance... Yes, their stock
prices went down. But which company did not?


> I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell
> phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when
it > starts beeping either.
>

Again, see note above. The internet is not just for buying things. It's also for promoting articles and other business models.

The phone can be said to be PROMOTING things and business models......

Did
you ever hear of telemarketing?


Telemarketing is now due to fail. check http://www.donotcall.gov. Again,
what does that have to do with 2-Tier design against 3-Tier design?

> Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those
tiny 5" > portable DVD players.
> I wonder WHY??????
>

Maybe you're not in with the current vehicles. Why are most of them being equipped with portable DVD players? And most trips take longer than that (or movies). But, again this has no bearing on the N-TIER topic so I won't
give it my two cents.


I has a BUSINESS bearing......PDA's have a 2 inch screen......Just how

many
people want to stare at a 2 inch screen for 2 hours


Problem is, you probably haven't been out much. Or have you reported to
work lately? Maybe you should ask your boss if they've got one. Out

here, almost every manager has one. But, that's not even related to 2-Tier design and 3-Tier design.
DVD's of the Kids to keep them occupied...The adults are usually
driving......If you want to watch The Lion King that's great.

Well, even some adults have their own toys. Last I know, i've never seen

a 52" surround sound GPS screen. Those also came out in a 5 inch screen. And even their hardware is designed using the methodology of N-Tier development. You can upgrade your software, but don't need to buy a new unit. It's
analogous to changing the business rules, but keeping the GUI look the same. Then again, I don't expect you to understand it coz, you'd probably think
all the software is built into the GPS just like the PDA having a "business" tier. Or do you also want to fit in a "300Gb" database in a PDA too? Or
maybe a desktop application in one workstation (just to justify your "No
PDA" attitude) which is kind of "STUPID."

> Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help
> you arrogant N-Tier advocates.
>

Sure, fit that in your Chevy Tahoe... let's see if you can have the

proper
position of watching it.

> Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on those > Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP... which is NOT
> 365 days a year.
>
>

Ever heard of docking stations? Most IT professionals, and even managers, don't have a desktop and a notebook. Maintaining one PC is hard

enough, imagine if you had to transfer your data everytime you're on the go?


So this justifies N-Tier......? I don't think so.


You're the one who brought up the topic of laptops (which are called
notebooks nowaday). I just forgot to ask you the relevance of "Notebooks"
in N-Tier development.

By the way, don't give up... keep it coming. I'm willing to entertain

your ideas no matter how "stupid" they get. But if you really hate N-Tier
development... stick to device driver development. Now, those are programs that don't need N-Tier development. But as your topic said, "WEB."



Jul 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste
programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.

Colin

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Still missing one important aspect.

Search and replace works just as good as OOP...

It's a proven tool that applications like Word, NotePad, and even VS.NET
have built in....

I could easily have a bunch of the SAME methods all over the place that can be easily "SEARCH and REPLACED" a LOT FASTER than the OOP abstracted, all in one place N-Tier or 3-Tier design.

I guess since it's SO simple to use, OOP people don't even want to mention
it because they have less work or would be out of a job...wouldn't want the manager to know it was so simple would you.

Nevertheless, no one here said business logic was built directly INTO the
PDA. BUT Gurus, authors, MVP's, etc keep touting it in the Architecture of Web Sites, server side, by saying, "Oohhhhh, because we have a middle tier
and our business logic can easily work with "different" presentation
layers......Uhhhhh...did it ever occur to you that different presentation
layers mean totally different USER Needs???????? Translation.....a lot
simplier, (which means different) business logic layer.

THE FACT that YOU ACCEPT BUGS as a WAY of LIFE for SOFTWARE
means your NOT INNOVATIVE as YOU THINK YOU ARE.

WHERE IS THAT IMAGINATION YOU keep talking about???????

--------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS A RIDDLE FOR YOU
Full OOP = "fill in the blank here" = Full Plate of Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lot more where this came from.......
As we wait, there will be more revealed bugs, patches that break other
patches, and fixes that unfixes other fixes.

Oh well, so much for ENCAPSULATION when patches break other patches...but
then that's OK with you since you, Mr. INNOVATION, have accepted bugs as a
fact of life.



"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO or NEED,
> > FIRST.
> >
>
> For your information, that's exactly what the MS Architecture team is doing.
> There are only a few of your kind who still believes 2-tier designs are the
> way to go. But for the majority of us, we see the value of N-Tier
> development. Why don't you just do COBOL development. But wait, oh
yeah...
> i have had a few experiences in it, and even they have a concept of
> "modules." And these programs have been around even before I wrote my first
> program in BASICA.

NOPE. YOU DID NOT GIVE A TECHNICAL REASON. COBOL is STILL in use today after some 30 years.

I said, even COBOL introduced modules where there are modules that help
developers do data access (i.e. access a DB2 database or VSAM files and in
some cases XML from other systems). And I never said, COBOL was shelved

by
IT groups. I said, even now... COBOL is in used. Only that it matured

and
accepted the idea of separating presentation code from business logic and the data tier from business logic through the use of modules. READ
CAREFULLY!!!
ALSO, your concept of Modules is Twisted in the wrong direction. Look at the News....all of this N-Tier is still producing GLITCHES here and there, again and again. So CAlled SOFTWARE Upgrades are the once producing
glitches....WHY is this SO? I thought N-Tier wasn't supposed to produce glitches...Where is all that QA?


I've never seen a program that didn't have any problems. As they say, the only bug free program is an obsolete one. Even if there were no bugs,
business rules change over time. That's why separating the business logic i
s so important in MODERN software architecture.
Look at all the Service Packs that have fixed one things and broken
another.....Hmmm Seems like your MODULES are designed improperly.

And so are some 2-tier design system. Now are we discussing N-Tier

design vs. 2-Tier design or QA?
Look at just today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Trading firm....must have N-Tier......didn't seem to work there...I wonder how much time and money was lost there....Imagine if that was a
hospital......


Well, just for your information... I know that the hospital I work for

uses
N-Tier architecture. I don't have to imagine coz I know it works.
Occassionaly, we have to change the business rules because of some

contract
changes and whatsoever. Fortunately for us, we had our business logic
separate from our presentation that we didn't have to do it in every

page!!!
Our turn around is fast that a change can be done in less that two weeks

and
that would include extensive QA!!!

>
> > REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton
> > FAILURE
> >


What's stupid is thinking that N-Tier is used inside a PDA. I think I

have
an idea of what you think about N-Tier. Just a wild guess, you probably
think all of the modules/assemblies run in one machine which is operated

by
the user. The business tier is located on a server. The only tier that's on the PDA is the GUI. Now... what was that word again, "stupid?"
> > http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
> > BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY did what
> > people really NEEDED to be done.
> >
>
> The reason N-Tier is used for PDA interfaces is because, the business rules
> are not used only for PDA's. These companies also offer full browser > compliant web pages. (And sometimes, thick clients.)
If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier programmers, gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
PDA's????????????????????????????????


Again, see the note above with "STUPID" on it. You don't put the business logic on the PDA!!!

> > NOW, based on that fiasco,
> > Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY STUFF > >
> > ....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO HOURS
> > RESEARCHING PRICES!!!
> >
>
> Is that all you know about the function of the internet? To buy stuff? How
> weak is your sense of entrepreneurship? The internet is more than
> researching prices. People use their wireless PDA to check on stock
prices
> (specially those who are always on the go). Others use the internet to > browse their emails. In today's mobile world, everyone needs to be
> connected. From my experience, the big wigs don't like to carry bulky > notebooks.
WEAK. WEAK. WEAK.
IS this the same silly Entrepreneurship thinking from MBA's and N-Tier
Programmer and C++ Thumpers that created Pets.com...thinking that people will pay the extra shipping for a 50lb bag of dog food to ship
cross-country?


Well, in case you didn't know... it was not the architecture that caused these businesses to fail but rather the business model adopted by these

"DOT
COM" companies. I know of a several DOT COM's that adopted 2-Tier design (i.e. technology through Vignette Story Server ver 4.x and below) that
failed and laid off all their workers.
What do you or any programmer in general know about entrepreneurship?

Look
at the DOT.BOMB...there were a lot of people there with 2 or 3 or 4

letters
after their signature.......


That's something I'm not willing to disclose to you... But, trust me...

I
do know a lot. Just to give you an example, because on N-Tier

development,
IBM can develop software using teams from the US and a bulk of programmer in
India (or any part of the world for that matter) without clobbering each
other's deliverables. That's because, teams can be divided into tasks
to handle different pieces and modules of an enterprise application. It's
possible to issue releases after releases without breaking existing
components in production. Failures in patches are natural for a software development cycle. Or have you not experienced that yourself. I would
think that your programs are so perfect they never had any bugs once the
came into production. Or, that you've actually foreseen ALL the needs of your clients that you don't have to change the business rules in your
application. N-Tier development and deploying patches are not JUST for
FIXING bugs.
How about Loud Cloud? WebVan? All N-Tier with 30 years of experience
there......

The list goes on and on.....


Yeah? What about ebay? And no matter how much you despise Microsoft,

it's
still out there doing great business. I think it just came up with a good business report to its shareholders. But you see, there are other

websites
out there that use N-Tier development and are still in production. So,

what
are you blabbering about companies using N-Tier design going out of
business. It's all about the business model and how you handle your
finance. Just to answer your question in advance... Yes, their stock
prices went down. But which company did not?


>
> > I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell > > phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when
it
> > starts beeping either.
> >
>
> Again, see note above. The internet is not just for buying things.

It's
> also for promoting articles and other business models.
The phone can be said to be PROMOTING things and business models......

Did
you ever hear of telemarketing?


Telemarketing is now due to fail. check http://www.donotcall.gov.

Again, what does that have to do with 2-Tier design against 3-Tier design?

>
> > Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those tiny
5"
> > portable DVD players.
> > I wonder WHY??????
> >
>
> Maybe you're not in with the current vehicles. Why are most of them

being
> equipped with portable DVD players? And most trips take longer than

that
> (or movies). But, again this has no bearing on the N-TIER topic so I won't
> give it my two cents.

I has a BUSINESS bearing......PDA's have a 2 inch screen......Just how

many
people want to stare at a 2 inch screen for 2 hours


Problem is, you probably haven't been out much. Or have you reported to
work lately? Maybe you should ask your boss if they've got one. Out

here,
almost every manager has one. But, that's not even related to 2-Tier

design
and 3-Tier design.
DVD's of the Kids to keep them occupied...The adults are usually
driving......If you want to watch The Lion King that's great.


Well, even some adults have their own toys. Last I know, i've never

seen a
52" surround sound GPS screen. Those also came out in a 5 inch screen.

And
even their hardware is designed using the methodology of N-Tier

development.
You can upgrade your software, but don't need to buy a new unit. It's
analogous to changing the business rules, but keeping the GUI look the

same.
Then again, I don't expect you to understand it coz, you'd probably

think all the software is built into the GPS just like the PDA having a

"business"
tier. Or do you also want to fit in a "300Gb" database in a PDA too? Or maybe a desktop application in one workstation (just to justify your "No
PDA" attitude) which is kind of "STUPID."

>
> > Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help
> > you arrogant N-Tier advocates.
> >
>
> Sure, fit that in your Chevy Tahoe... let's see if you can have the
proper
> position of watching it.
>
> > Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on

those
> > Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP...
which is
> NOT
> > 365 days a year.
> >
> >
>
> Ever heard of docking stations? Most IT professionals, and even

managers,
> don't have a desktop and a notebook. Maintaining one PC is hard enough, > imagine if you had to transfer your data everytime you're on the go?
>

So this justifies N-Tier......? I don't think so.


You're the one who brought up the topic of laptops (which are called
notebooks nowaday). I just forgot to ask you the relevance of

"Notebooks" in N-Tier development.

By the way, don't give up... keep it coming. I'm willing to entertain

your
ideas no matter how "stupid" they get. But if you really hate N-Tier
development... stick to device driver development. Now, those are

programs
that don't need N-Tier development. But as your topic said, "WEB."




Jul 19 '05 #18

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u5**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Still missing one important aspect.

Search and replace works just as good as OOP...

Sure, search and replace works really well, until you've forgotten to search
and replace one piece of your application. With N-Tier development, I
modify it in one place, compile, send it to my users and they plug it in. I
don't even have to bother other "production" components that are dependent
on my changes. Which one is easier to maintain now?
It's a proven tool that applications like Word, NotePad, and even VS.NET
have built in....

What you don't realize is that all the apps you've said also expose COM
components that applications can take advantage of. These components are
also easily used for N-Tier development.
I could easily have a bunch of the SAME methods all over the place that can be easily "SEARCH and REPLACED" a LOT FASTER than the OOP abstracted, all in one place N-Tier or 3-Tier design.

Like I said, in N-Tier design, I modify the method I need to change and no
more search and replace for me. Which one is a lot faster... What if you
have to modify a whole code block? Damn, you're lucky if you're using
Regular Expressions so you can include CRLF characters on your text. What
you gonna do? Replace each occurrence of a certain command in your code,
line per line. Hmmm, business rule contains 10 lines of code (at least),
across 10 pages. Wow a 100 times you'll have to do cut and paste. Regular
Expression cut and paste style... figuring out the regular expression in
the find string and applying the correct one to the replace string... good
luck!!!
I guess since it's SO simple to use, OOP people don't even want to mention
it because they have less work or would be out of a job...wouldn't want the manager to know it was so simple would you.

It's simple to use, yeah... But, the reason why it's not mentioned by most
OOP programmers is because it's just plain "STUPID." Knowing if we design
it well, we only need to change it in one place.
Nevertheless, no one here said business logic was built directly INTO the
PDA. BUT Gurus, authors, MVP's, etc keep touting it in the Architecture of Web Sites, server side, by saying, "Oohhhhh, because we have a middle tier
and our business logic can easily work with "different" presentation
layers......Uhhhhh...did it ever occur to you that different presentation
layers mean totally different USER Needs???????? Translation.....a lot
simplier, (which means different) business logic layer.
Let me "Cut and Paste" what you indicated in your reply...
If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier programmers, gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
PDA's???????????????????????????????? > > REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton
> > FAILURE
Don't deny what you wrote... and if you are, you're just contradicting what
you say. And if you contradict yourself, then your word as a "contributing"
member in a group of developers is not to be taken seriously. Your words
"as such for use in PDA's" suggest that you're thinking of putting the
business tier in it (just plain stupid as an idea though).

And to answer your question of different presentation layers are different
functions... NOT!!! Given an example of a simple (note the word simple)
Time And Attendance application. There is only one goal of the enterprise
app. That is, to log in the time the employee got in and out. Yet,
software companies have written a Web GUI, Voice Recognition Telephone
systems and swipe cards. Although these interfaces are different, all their
underlying rules are the same. For example, the employee cannot come in to
work before 7:00 AM. Despite the interfaces are different, they all follow
the same rule. Now, assuming you go with your 2-Tier design... the company
decides to change the rule to 8:00 AM... Wow, modification on 3 UI's. So,
where's the difference in the user's needs in this scenario? Take the
example of a retail application, since your major use for the internet is to
buy things. A company may open a website to sell their items, a 1-800
service over the phone and a retail store. In case you want a solid
example, take pizza hut as one. It has all three means of getting to the
customer... (Pizza hut is working on a central site, where people in one
location can take the order and forward it to their regional stores.) All
the rules are the same, you make your order, get charged and tax is added
into it plus other fees. Yeah, the rates may be different but if you design
it differently, you'd just grab it from the database and feed that
information to the interface. Even though each GUI may have additional
features, the basic rules of doing business still applies.

Man, this feels weird, it's like teaching a high school student to break bad
habits!!!

THE FACT that YOU ACCEPT BUGS as a WAY of LIFE for SOFTWARE
means your NOT INNOVATIVE as YOU THINK YOU ARE.

At least I'm smart enough to realize that not everything in life is perfect.
To assume that it is is plain stupid. And because of this assumption, I
find a constant role in correcting the imperfection and making people's life
better.
WHERE IS THAT IMAGINATION YOU keep talking about???????

However, bugs are not the only reason to issue updates and patches. You can
improve performance as technology becomes better. For a simple minded
person's sake... Consider that he created software that used, bubble sort
algorithm inside a method. Later on, he found out that a quick sort
algorithm will make his application work better... making the change on the
DLL across all applications that used his component is easier than changing
all the applications with that logic. EVEN WITH CUT AND PASTE!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS A RIDDLE FOR YOU
Full OOP = "fill in the blank here" = Full Plate of Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the use of the riddle? And it's seems to be missing another "O."
There is a lot more where this came from.......
As we wait, there will be more revealed bugs, patches that break other
patches, and fixes that unfixes other fixes.

Can you say honestly, that you've never changed your application once it
went to production. Or do you call it an entirely different product every
new release...
Oh well, so much for ENCAPSULATION when patches break other patches...but
then that's OK with you since you, Mr. INNOVATION, have accepted bugs as a
fact of life.


Yes, I have accepted bugs as a natural fact of life... and so is famine and
war and every little evil in this world. Not to accept it is to live a
false life. But should that stop me from putting out my patches or getting
them, the answer is definitely NO. In a digital world, no matter how secure
your application is, it's just plain nonsense to think that you are safe
from every hacker in this world. Nor should you assume that your
application works perfectly. One should design their system for growth,
adaptation and presentation. Perfection, is a false goal. As a seasoned
developer, I know that not everyone can be satisfied by your work. And
that's why, patches are released one right after the other. Why is it, that
Norton AntiVirus and McAffee, producing updates to their systems? They are
afterall, somewhat reliable. That's because it's a never ending battle.
Besides, life does not stop because your application has been rid of bugs.
You can constantly improve on it, give it more features and make it more
user friendly. Like I said, fixing bugs is not the only reason why you
issue a patch. Now, isn't that innovation? But I guess, I have to thank
you for calling me as such. (NOT!!!)

Here's the real plus of N-Tier design that I keep on forgetting to include
in my past messages. N-Tier development allows me to concentrate more on
building the application rather than spending time on the "infrastructure"
of my product. If you don't understand that, you can read up on Microsoft
DNA or J2EE development. They'll explain to you what I meant.

As for the moment, J2EE has the better infrastructure than Microsoft. Only,
Microsoft has the better IDE than most J2EE compliant tool I've used before.
That includes JBuilder... really need to improve it a whole lot more to
come par with Visual Studio. And if you think Microsoft has a patch every 2
months or so, JBuilder has a new version every 3 to 6 months. My point is,
no matter what technology you use, you'll constantly encounter bugs in the
system. Even the "glorified" mainframe applications have bugs. Remember,
Y2K? Now, that's a perfect example of how hairy it was to modify 2-Tier
applications. (As most COBOL programs have that very nature.) If it were
an N-Tier architecture... as I did with my clients... all I needed was a
patch from microsoft and modified one module. Beat that with your cut and
paste!!! (And yes, the companies continued to operate even after Y2K.)

I come to wonder, how do you build "internationalized" versions of your
applications. It must be a gruesome task to change its feature from english
to spanish to french. Oh, I can just imagine the currencies and the dates
(in case you didn't know, some countries use comma's instead of dots in
numbers, and dots instead of slashes)... Thinking of how to do it in a two
tier application gives me the horror of doing everything ALL OVER AGAIN on
the same logical code. That is one piece where your "CUT" and "PASTE"
wouldn't work too well... Still convinced that your favorite "CUT" and
"PASTE" will do the job? Don't ask me how, but for seasoned developers
(it's a trade secret for N-Tier developers and OOP programmers)... this is
an easy task with OOP and N-Tier development. Having a different method for
each language is not even necessary if you design it right. Just remember,
after it is all said and done, currency representation and dates, no matter
what the culture is, are all represented the same way in .NET at the end.



"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > MORE for the MS Architecture Team......THINK about what PEOPLE DO
or NEED,
> > FIRST.
> >
>
> For your information, that's exactly what the MS Architecture team is doing.
> There are only a few of your kind who still believes 2-tier designs are the
> way to go. But for the majority of us, we see the value of N-Tier
> development. Why don't you just do COBOL development. But wait, oh
yeah...
> i have had a few experiences in it, and even they have a concept of
> "modules." And these programs have been around even before I wrote my first
> program in BASICA.

NOPE. YOU DID NOT GIVE A TECHNICAL REASON. COBOL is STILL in use today after some 30 years.

I said, even COBOL introduced modules where there are modules that help
developers do data access (i.e. access a DB2 database or VSAM files and in some cases XML from other systems). And I never said, COBOL was shelved

by
IT groups. I said, even now... COBOL is in used. Only that it matured

and
accepted the idea of separating presentation code from business logic and the data tier from business logic through the use of modules. READ
CAREFULLY!!!
ALSO, your concept of Modules is Twisted in the wrong direction. Look at the News....all of this N-Tier is still producing GLITCHES here and there, again and again. So CAlled SOFTWARE Upgrades are the once producing
glitches....WHY is this SO? I thought N-Tier wasn't supposed to produce glitches...Where is all that QA?


I've never seen a program that didn't have any problems. As they say, the only bug free program is an obsolete one. Even if there were no bugs,
business rules change over time. That's why separating the business logic i
s so important in MODERN software architecture.
Look at all the Service Packs that have fixed one things and broken
another.....Hmmm Seems like your MODULES are designed improperly.

And so are some 2-tier design system. Now are we discussing N-Tier

design vs. 2-Tier design or QA?
Look at just today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Trading firm....must have N-Tier......didn't seem to work there...I wonder how much time and money was lost there....Imagine if that was a
hospital......


Well, just for your information... I know that the hospital I work for

uses
N-Tier architecture. I don't have to imagine coz I know it works.
Occassionaly, we have to change the business rules because of some

contract
changes and whatsoever. Fortunately for us, we had our business logic
separate from our presentation that we didn't have to do it in every

page!!!
Our turn around is fast that a change can be done in less that two weeks

and
that would include extensive QA!!!

>
> > REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's Newton
> > FAILURE
> >


What's stupid is thinking that N-Tier is used inside a PDA. I think I

have
an idea of what you think about N-Tier. Just a wild guess, you probably
think all of the modules/assemblies run in one machine which is operated

by
the user. The business tier is located on a server. The only tier that's on the PDA is the GUI. Now... what was that word again, "stupid?"
> > http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,54580,00.html
> > BIG as a BRICK......Look at why the Palm took off, small and ONLY did what
> > people really NEEDED to be done.
> >
>
> The reason N-Tier is used for PDA interfaces is because, the business rules
> are not used only for PDA's. These companies also offer full browser > compliant web pages. (And sometimes, thick clients.)
If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier programmers, gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
PDA's????????????????????????????????


Again, see the note above with "STUPID" on it. You don't put the business logic on the PDA!!!

> > NOW, based on that fiasco,
> > Most people use the Internet to RESEARCH PRICES BEFORE they BUY STUFF > >
> > ....PDA's with a 2 inch screen are NOT great for spending ONE or TWO HOURS
> > RESEARCHING PRICES!!!
> >
>
> Is that all you know about the function of the internet? To buy stuff? How
> weak is your sense of entrepreneurship? The internet is more than
> researching prices. People use their wireless PDA to check on stock
prices
> (specially those who are always on the go). Others use the internet to > browse their emails. In today's mobile world, everyone needs to be
> connected. From my experience, the big wigs don't like to carry bulky > notebooks.
WEAK. WEAK. WEAK.
IS this the same silly Entrepreneurship thinking from MBA's and N-Tier
Programmer and C++ Thumpers that created Pets.com...thinking that people will pay the extra shipping for a 50lb bag of dog food to ship
cross-country?


Well, in case you didn't know... it was not the architecture that caused these businesses to fail but rather the business model adopted by these

"DOT
COM" companies. I know of a several DOT COM's that adopted 2-Tier design (i.e. technology through Vignette Story Server ver 4.x and below) that
failed and laid off all their workers.
What do you or any programmer in general know about entrepreneurship?

Look
at the DOT.BOMB...there were a lot of people there with 2 or 3 or 4

letters
after their signature.......


That's something I'm not willing to disclose to you... But, trust me...

I
do know a lot. Just to give you an example, because on N-Tier

development,
IBM can develop software using teams from the US and a bulk of programmer in
India (or any part of the world for that matter) without clobbering each
other's deliverables. That's because, teams can be divided into tasks
to handle different pieces and modules of an enterprise application. It's
possible to issue releases after releases without breaking existing
components in production. Failures in patches are natural for a software development cycle. Or have you not experienced that yourself. I would
think that your programs are so perfect they never had any bugs once the
came into production. Or, that you've actually foreseen ALL the needs of your clients that you don't have to change the business rules in your
application. N-Tier development and deploying patches are not JUST for
FIXING bugs.
How about Loud Cloud? WebVan? All N-Tier with 30 years of experience
there......

The list goes on and on.....


Yeah? What about ebay? And no matter how much you despise Microsoft,

it's
still out there doing great business. I think it just came up with a good business report to its shareholders. But you see, there are other

websites
out there that use N-Tier development and are still in production. So,

what
are you blabbering about companies using N-Tier design going out of
business. It's all about the business model and how you handle your
finance. Just to answer your question in advance... Yes, their stock
prices went down. But which company did not?


>
> > I also don't buy things when a telemarketer calls me to on the cell > > phone...so don't expect anyone to buy anything off a PDA as well when
it
> > starts beeping either.
> >
>
> Again, see note above. The internet is not just for buying things.

It's
> also for promoting articles and other business models.
The phone can be said to be PROMOTING things and business models......

Did
you ever hear of telemarketing?


Telemarketing is now due to fail. check http://www.donotcall.gov.

Again, what does that have to do with 2-Tier design against 3-Tier design?

>
> > Last time I checked, no one watches a 2 hour DVD on one of those tiny
5"
> > portable DVD players.
> > I wonder WHY??????
> >
>
> Maybe you're not in with the current vehicles. Why are most of them

being
> equipped with portable DVD players? And most trips take longer than

that
> (or movies). But, again this has no bearing on the N-TIER topic so I won't
> give it my two cents.

I has a BUSINESS bearing......PDA's have a 2 inch screen......Just how

many
people want to stare at a 2 inch screen for 2 hours


Problem is, you probably haven't been out much. Or have you reported to
work lately? Maybe you should ask your boss if they've got one. Out

here,
almost every manager has one. But, that's not even related to 2-Tier

design
and 3-Tier design.
DVD's of the Kids to keep them occupied...The adults are usually
driving......If you want to watch The Lion King that's great.


Well, even some adults have their own toys. Last I know, i've never

seen a
52" surround sound GPS screen. Those also came out in a 5 inch screen.

And
even their hardware is designed using the methodology of N-Tier

development.
You can upgrade your software, but don't need to buy a new unit. It's
analogous to changing the business rules, but keeping the GUI look the

same.
Then again, I don't expect you to understand it coz, you'd probably

think all the software is built into the GPS just like the PDA having a

"business"
tier. Or do you also want to fit in a "300Gb" database in a PDA too? Or maybe a desktop application in one workstation (just to justify your "No
PDA" attitude) which is kind of "STUPID."

>
> > Perhaps the words, "52 inch BIG SCREEN TV with SURROUND SOUND" might help
> > you arrogant N-Tier advocates.
> >
>
> Sure, fit that in your Chevy Tahoe... let's see if you can have the
proper
> position of watching it.
>
> > Or, perhaps it's competing against the 15 inch LAPTOP will help on

those
> > Long airplane trips....BUT REMEMBER...IT's an AIRPLANE TRIP...
which is
> NOT
> > 365 days a year.
> >
> >
>
> Ever heard of docking stations? Most IT professionals, and even

managers,
> don't have a desktop and a notebook. Maintaining one PC is hard enough, > imagine if you had to transfer your data everytime you're on the go?
>

So this justifies N-Tier......? I don't think so.


You're the one who brought up the topic of laptops (which are called
notebooks nowaday). I just forgot to ask you the relevance of

"Notebooks" in N-Tier development.

By the way, don't give up... keep it coming. I'm willing to entertain

your
ideas no matter how "stupid" they get. But if you really hate N-Tier
development... stick to device driver development. Now, those are

programs
that don't need N-Tier development. But as your topic said, "WEB."




Jul 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
PROVE IT.

There is a bug every other day with OOP.....Did you ever hear about
Microsoft Windows Update? Critical Update....that seems to be every other
day...and who know how many things are being patched.

YOU HAVE ZERO PROOF...... ALL TALK......

SHOW THE UNBIAS STUDY...

It's just that you don't know how to use Search and Replace correctly.

"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste
programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.

Colin

Jul 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
comments BELOW and INLINE...
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ui**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Sure, search and replace works really well, until you've forgotten to search and replace one piece of your application. With N-Tier development, I
modify it in one place, compile, send it to my users and they plug it in. I don't even have to bother other "production" components that are dependent
on my changes. Which one is easier to maintain now?
NO, NO, NO, NO......

Forgotten to replace one piece....HOW about the other way around? With OOP,
making the change in ONE place doesn't mean that EVERY PLACE is going to be
right.....Ohhhhhh....did I hear Design Pattern????????

What if it's a new business logic? Heck, we don't even need that! Where are
those Design Patterns NOW?

How do you know if the Object Model was correct in this INSTANCE????

With Search and Replace, at least I know and have a list of what's being
changed.....With OOP, you HOPE, READ H.O.P.E. that your Object Model was
done right and took into considering this NEW change that is being
added.....
A NEW CHANGE, that YOU DIDN'T anticpate from the very beginning.
A new change that was never designed into the Object Model.

Uh, Ohhhh....Did I hear on the News again another Windows Update ..Critical
Update from Microsoft.....

Oh, but since we trust OOP so much, this NEW Update, IS SUPPOSED TO NOT
affect anything IT shouldn't AFFECT...... BUT of course WE DON'T KNOW....

WE are SO PROUD of OUR OOP MODEL...IT SHOULD ALWAYS WORK....

HOWEVER, if it DOESN"T WORK, we can use the standard excuse, "BUGS ARE A
FACT OF LIFE, JUST LIKE ANYTHING ELSE"

HOW CONVENIENT????????

TO the other Poster, If I had a penny every time a Programmer said, "Bugs
are a Fact of Life...."

At least I'm smart enough to realize that not everything in life is perfect. To assume that it is is plain stupid. And because of this assumption, I
find a constant role in correcting the imperfection and making people's life better.

Oh really, "everything in life is NOT PERFECT"....BUT OOP is PERFECT?????

IS OOP is PERFECT, why do we have software patches every WEEK?


It's a proven tool that applications like Word, NotePad, and even VS.NET
have built in....

What you don't realize is that all the apps you've said also expose COM
components that applications can take advantage of. These components are
also easily used for N-Tier development.
I could easily have a bunch of the SAME methods all over the place that

can
be easily "SEARCH and REPLACED" a LOT FASTER than the OOP abstracted, all in
one place N-Tier or 3-Tier design.

Like I said, in N-Tier design, I modify the method I need to change and no
more search and replace for me. Which one is a lot faster... What if you
have to modify a whole code block? Damn, you're lucky if you're using
Regular Expressions so you can include CRLF characters on your text. What
you gonna do? Replace each occurrence of a certain command in your code,
line per line. Hmmm, business rule contains 10 lines of code (at least),
across 10 pages. Wow a 100 times you'll have to do cut and paste.

Regular Expression cut and paste style... figuring out the regular expression in
the find string and applying the correct one to the replace string... good luck!!!
I guess since it's SO simple to use, OOP people don't even want to mention it because they have less work or would be out of a job...wouldn't want the
manager to know it was so simple would you.


It's simple to use, yeah... But, the reason why it's not mentioned by

most OOP programmers is because it's just plain "STUPID." Knowing if we design
it well, we only need to change it in one place.
Nevertheless, no one here said business logic was built directly INTO the PDA. BUT Gurus, authors, MVP's, etc keep touting it in the Architecture
of
Web Sites, server side, by saying, "Oohhhhh, because we have a middle
tier and our business logic can easily work with "different" presentation
layers......Uhhhhh...did it ever occur to you that different presentation layers mean totally different USER Needs???????? Translation.....a lot
simplier, (which means different) business logic layer.


Let me "Cut and Paste" what you indicated in your reply...
If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier

programmers,
> gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
> PDA's???????????????????????????????? > > REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to Apple's > Newton
> > > FAILURE
Don't deny what you wrote... and if you are, you're just contradicting

what you say. And if you contradict yourself, then your word as a "contributing" member in a group of developers is not to be taken seriously. Your words
"as such for use in PDA's" suggest that you're thinking of putting the
business tier in it (just plain stupid as an idea though).

And to answer your question of different presentation layers are different
functions... NOT!!! Given an example of a simple (note the word simple)
Time And Attendance application. There is only one goal of the enterprise
app. That is, to log in the time the employee got in and out. Yet,
software companies have written a Web GUI, Voice Recognition Telephone
systems and swipe cards. Although these interfaces are different, all their underlying rules are the same. For example, the employee cannot come in to work before 7:00 AM. Despite the interfaces are different, they all follow the same rule. Now, assuming you go with your 2-Tier design... the company decides to change the rule to 8:00 AM... Wow, modification on 3 UI's.
And just how long will it take to modify 3 UI's? (seconds/ minutes /hours
please?)

Careful how you answer this?

This is exactly what I am looking for......

Hmmm.......

So, where's the difference in the user's needs in this scenario? Take the
example of a retail application, since your major use for the internet is to buy things. A company may open a website to sell their items, a 1-800
service over the phone and a retail store. In case you want a solid
example, take pizza hut as one. It has all three means of getting to the
customer... (Pizza hut is working on a central site, where people in one
location can take the order and forward it to their regional stores.) All
the rules are the same, you make your order, get charged and tax is added
into it plus other fees. Yeah, the rates may be different but if you design it differently, you'd just grab it from the database and feed that
information to the interface. Even though each GUI may have additional
features, the basic rules of doing business still applies.

Man, this feels weird, it's like teaching a high school student to break bad habits!!!

WRONG, COPY AND PASTE AND MODIFY and let each method of order entry stand
alone by itself.

Let's take a look at the time to copy paste and modify and single
method....will I be able to use a hot key...why NO....OK.

Control-C, Control-V 3 TIMES........Opppppsssss repetive stress
syndrome.......
How many seconds is that????????? Let's compare that time with the OOP
method?????

THE FACT that YOU ACCEPT BUGS as a WAY of LIFE for SOFTWARE
means your NOT INNOVATIVE as YOU THINK YOU ARE.

At least I'm smart enough to realize that not everything in life is

perfect. To assume that it is is plain stupid. And because of this assumption, I
find a constant role in correcting the imperfection and making people's life better.
WHERE IS THAT IMAGINATION YOU keep talking about???????

However, bugs are not the only reason to issue updates and patches. You

can improve performance as technology becomes better. For a simple minded
person's sake... Consider that he created software that used, bubble sort
algorithm inside a method. Later on, he found out that a quick sort
algorithm will make his application work better... making the change on the DLL across all applications that used his component is easier than changing all the applications with that logic. EVEN WITH CUT AND PASTE!!!

WRONG. It's all encapsulated in a STANDARD METHOD......EASY to SEARCH and
REPLACE

You ALSO KNOW WHICH PAGES need to be replaced in the first place....Why is
this possible? K.I.S.S. Because the pages are named properly and can easily
figure out which pages should have been replace just by similarly named
pages...

EASY AS PIE......
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS A RIDDLE FOR YOU
Full OOP = "fill in the blank here" = Full Plate of Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the use of the riddle? And it's seems to be missing another "O."
There is a lot more where this came from.......
As we wait, there will be more revealed bugs, patches that break other
patches, and fixes that unfixes other fixes.


Can you say honestly, that you've never changed your application once it
went to production. Or do you call it an entirely different product every
new release...
Oh well, so much for ENCAPSULATION when patches break other

patches...but then that's OK with you since you, Mr. INNOVATION, have accepted bugs as a fact of life.


Yes, I have accepted bugs as a natural fact of life... and so is famine

and war and every little evil in this world. Not to accept it is to live a
false life. But should that stop me from putting out my patches or getting them, the answer is definitely NO. In a digital world, no matter how secure your application is, it's just plain nonsense to think that you are safe
from every hacker in this world. Nor should you assume that your
application works perfectly. One should design their system for growth,
adaptation and presentation. Perfection, is a false goal. As a seasoned
developer, I know that not everyone can be satisfied by your work. And
that's why, patches are released one right after the other. Why is it, that Norton AntiVirus and McAffee, producing updates to their systems? They are afterall, somewhat reliable. That's because it's a never ending battle.
Besides, life does not stop because your application has been rid of bugs.
You can constantly improve on it, give it more features and make it more
user friendly. Like I said, fixing bugs is not the only reason why you
issue a patch. Now, isn't that innovation? But I guess, I have to thank
you for calling me as such. (NOT!!!)

Here's the real plus of N-Tier design that I keep on forgetting to include
in my past messages. N-Tier development allows me to concentrate more on
building the application rather than spending time on the "infrastructure"
of my product. If you don't understand that, you can read up on Microsoft
DNA or J2EE development. They'll explain to you what I meant.

As for the moment, J2EE has the better infrastructure than Microsoft. Only, Microsoft has the better IDE than most J2EE compliant tool I've used before. That includes JBuilder... really need to improve it a whole lot more to
come par with Visual Studio. And if you think Microsoft has a patch every 2 months or so, JBuilder has a new version every 3 to 6 months. My point is, no matter what technology you use, you'll constantly encounter bugs in the
system. Even the "glorified" mainframe applications have bugs. Remember,
Y2K? Now, that's a perfect example of how hairy it was to modify 2-Tier
applications. (As most COBOL programs have that very nature.) If it were
an N-Tier architecture... as I did with my clients... all I needed was a
patch from microsoft and modified one module. Beat that with your cut and
paste!!! (And yes, the companies continued to operate even after Y2K.)
WRONG. YOU CAN"T SAY that 2-TIER was to blame for making that
difficult.....YOU don't even know if it was 2-Tier to begin with....these
were a lot of mainframes and databases logic...done long time ago and done
for performance reasons......DON"T even bring that as an example......

OUT OF CONTEXT AND REACHING......


I come to wonder, how do you build "internationalized" versions of your
applications. It must be a gruesome task to change its feature from english to spanish to french. Oh, I can just imagine the currencies and the dates
(in case you didn't know, some countries use comma's instead of dots in
numbers, and dots instead of slashes)... Thinking of how to do it in a two tier application gives me the horror of doing everything ALL OVER AGAIN on
the same logical code. That is one piece where your "CUT" and "PASTE"
wouldn't work too well... Still convinced that your favorite "CUT" and
"PASTE" will do the job? Don't ask me how, but for seasoned developers
(it's a trade secret for N-Tier developers and OOP programmers)... this is an easy task with OOP and N-Tier development. Having a different method for each language is not even necessary if you design it right. Just remember, after it is all said and done, currency representation and dates, no matter what the culture is, are all represented the same way in .NET at the end.


YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL APPS for the WEB.

Take a look at Microsoft Web site....is every web page in english have a
corresponding foreign language...NOPE....WHY is this?
How about just FRENCH or GERMAN? Still NO.....

I will let you think about this for a while


Jul 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
Let's keep adding things while I am still at it.

OOP is only good at making changes that have already been PRE-ANTICIPATED
and designed into the object model at the start. Hence, Design Patterns,
gang of four, blah, blah, crap. Hence, if it's not in the specifications,
your are royally screwed...Oh, but I though OOP can easily make
changes....NOPE, sorry, OOP can only make changes IF you had a CRYSTAL BALL
and could see it happening before your started your object model.....

2-Tier, being so very simple, can easily handle UN-ANTICIPATED changes and
changes that have never even been mention in the design specs. 2-Tier may
have to type just a TINY bit more, but being able to handle UNFORSEEN
changes is what typically happens in the real world. We don't have to
re-design an entire object model because we are not so ridicously abstracted
in some OOP glass house up in some mountain. 2-Tier architecture map
directly to business actual methods so it's easy to figure out and change.
We encapsulate via methods as that's what happens in real life as well.
OOP = good ONLY if you know what's going to happen(SPEC ONLY)

K.I.S.S. / 2-Tier = good if you know what's going to happen AND also good if
your DON'T know what's going to happen (with SPECS and WITHOUT SPECS)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE GIVEN UP.....OK.......

Oh, you still got to answer the riddle.........OK......Well, maybe I don't
want to....got to have a little mercy....


Jul 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.

Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp

Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,

Windows 2000 fixes released -
63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html

"....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key
developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first service
pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack
apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "

YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....

Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a TWO
(2) SECOND CHANGE

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......

"One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING DONG.......TOO
LATE....

OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that object
model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still not fixed
yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....

I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know until it
crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows
2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3 years to work
on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's ONLY GOOD FOR
KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when and how
they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO easy to
CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or class or
object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet in the OH
SO ever GREAT OOP model....
WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..THERE is
that OOP for you.....

STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????



"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste
programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.

Colin

Jul 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
All this blabbering... what that has to do with "YOU AS A DEVELOPER"
writing supposedly "BUG FREE" software... You've never made mistakes
before. If it wasn't for OOP... 63,000 bugs would have taken more than 3
years. I wonder, how long would it take to cut and paste code... Oh no!!!
FOREVER!!!!
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.

Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp

Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,

Windows 2000 fixes released -
63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html

"....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key
developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first service
pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack
apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "

YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....

Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a TWO
(2) SECOND CHANGE

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......

"One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING DONG.......TOO
LATE....

OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that object
model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still not fixed
yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....

I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know until it crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows
2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3 years to work on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's ONLY GOOD FOR KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when and how
they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO easy to
CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or class or
object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet in the OH SO ever GREAT OOP model....
WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..THERE is
that OOP for you.....

STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????



"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste
programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.

Colin


Jul 19 '05 #24

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u7*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
comments BELOW and INLINE...
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ui**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Sure, search and replace works really well, until you've forgotten to search
and replace one piece of your application. With N-Tier development, I
modify it in one place, compile, send it to my users and they plug it in. I
don't even have to bother other "production" components that are dependent on my changes. Which one is easier to maintain now?
NO, NO, NO, NO......

Forgotten to replace one piece....HOW about the other way around? With

OOP, making the change in ONE place doesn't mean that EVERY PLACE is going to be right.....Ohhhhhh....did I hear Design Pattern????????

Hey, mr. smart guy (NOT!!!) isn't search and replace prone to forgetting to
replace a piece too. At least in OOP, I can modify just that inner code of
the method. And if you design it right with interfaces, I can implement a
totally new class that will fix the problem. As for you, you have to
maintain an "Inventory" of the pages you needed to modify? How lame is
that... next thing I'll see is you'd probably be looking for spare parts...
And thank the Maker of Design Patterns... It makes my life so much
easier!!!
What if it's a new business logic? Heck, we don't even need that! Where are those Design Patterns NOW?

Don't even need that? you end up with a spaghetti code coz you needed to
insert that new rule inside your pieced-together, cut and paste crap.
How do you know if the Object Model was correct in this INSTANCE????

Duh!!! You make a class for only that one function... And you use it
wherever it's needed. So, it's that instance. And with an object model, I
can logically see my components unlike a "Flowchart" that's several pages
long.
With Search and Replace, at least I know and have a list of what's being
changed.....With OOP, you HOPE, READ H.O.P.E. that your Object Model was
done right and took into considering this NEW change that is being
added.....
A NEW CHANGE, that YOU DIDN'T anticpate from the very beginning.
A new change that was never designed into the Object Model.

That's why... I can always introduce a new class to implement the new
change. And if it has nothing to do with the other layers, I don't even
have to worry about my GUI or my Data Layer. With cut and paste... oops, I
modified a pattern that was not suppose to be.
Uh, Ohhhh....Did I hear on the News again another Windows Update ...Critical Update from Microsoft.....

What is it with you and Windows Update..... That's totally Microsoft's
problem. Let me put it this way, do you see JBOSS issue a critical update?
It's also totally OOP!!! The point here is, no matter what architecture you
use, you're still prone for errors if you're not carefull enough. At least,
they spend the time to fix it, rather than being in denial and claiming
their program is bug free, like you!!!
Oh, but since we trust OOP so much, this NEW Update, IS SUPPOSED TO NOT
affect anything IT shouldn't AFFECT...... BUT of course WE DON'T KNOW....

It's less riskier than CUT and PASTE, I tell you that...
WE are SO PROUD of OUR OOP MODEL...IT SHOULD ALWAYS WORK....

"IT SHOULD" not that it really would. And 2-Tier, non-OOP works all the
time? NOT!!!!
HOWEVER, if it DOESN"T WORK, we can use the standard excuse, "BUGS ARE A
FACT OF LIFE, JUST LIKE ANYTHING ELSE"

HOW CONVENIENT????????

It's a fact of life... I dare you to write a program without a bug.
According to statistics for every 15 lines of code you write, you generate
an error in most cases.
TO the other Poster, If I had a penny every time a Programmer said, "Bugs
are a Fact of Life...."


He's smart to know that... I feel sorry for you...
At least I'm smart enough to realize that not everything in life is

perfect.
To assume that it is is plain stupid. And because of this assumption, I
find a constant role in correcting the imperfection and making people's

life
better.


Oh really, "everything in life is NOT PERFECT"....BUT OOP is PERFECT?????


I never said OOP is perfect. In fact, at the end of my email, I even said
you should develop in Device Drivers. OOP has no place for that... (read
all the way to the end.)

IS OOP is PERFECT, why do we have software patches every WEEK?


Because, it's not OOP's fault that a "business" decision was made that
caused the problem. Or a programmer miskeyed a simple comma in a code (that
was responsible for crashing a probe in venus and I'd bet that was a non OOP
code).


It's a proven tool that applications like Word, NotePad, and even VS.NET have built in....

What you don't realize is that all the apps you've said also expose COM
components that applications can take advantage of. These components are also easily used for N-Tier development.
I could easily have a bunch of the SAME methods all over the place that
can
be easily "SEARCH and REPLACED" a LOT FASTER than the OOP abstracted, all
in
one place N-Tier or 3-Tier design.


You must be kidding or just plain insane!!! search and replace all over
rather than changin it in one method?
Like I said, in N-Tier design, I modify the method I need to change and no more search and replace for me. Which one is a lot faster... What if you have to modify a whole code block? Damn, you're lucky if you're using
Regular Expressions so you can include CRLF characters on your text. What you gonna do? Replace each occurrence of a certain command in your code, line per line. Hmmm, business rule contains 10 lines of code (at least), across 10 pages. Wow a 100 times you'll have to do cut and paste.

Regular
Expression cut and paste style... figuring out the regular expression in the find string and applying the correct one to the replace string...

good
luck!!!
I guess since it's SO simple to use, OOP people don't even want to mention it because they have less work or would be out of a job...wouldn't
want the
manager to know it was so simple would you.


It's simple to use, yeah... But, the reason why it's not mentioned by

most
OOP programmers is because it's just plain "STUPID." Knowing if we design it well, we only need to change it in one place.
Nevertheless, no one here said business logic was built directly INTO the PDA. BUT Gurus, authors, MVP's, etc keep touting it in the Architecture
of
Web Sites, server side, by saying, "Oohhhhh, because we have a middle

tier and our business logic can easily work with "different" presentation
layers......Uhhhhh...did it ever occur to you that different presentation layers mean totally different USER Needs???????? Translation.....a
lot simplier, (which means different) business logic layer.


Let me "Cut and Paste" what you indicated in your reply...
> > If the Business rules are NOT used for PDA's, why are N-Tier
programmers,
> > gurus, and MS advertising them as such for use in
> > PDA's????????????????????????????????

> > > > REALLY Stupid N-Tier PDA's Business use Logic....similar to

Apple's
> > Newton
> > > > FAILURE


Don't deny what you wrote... and if you are, you're just contradicting

what
you say. And if you contradict yourself, then your word as a

"contributing"
member in a group of developers is not to be taken seriously. Your

words "as such for use in PDA's" suggest that you're thinking of putting the
business tier in it (just plain stupid as an idea though).

And to answer your question of different presentation layers are different functions... NOT!!! Given an example of a simple (note the word simple) Time And Attendance application. There is only one goal of the enterprise app. That is, to log in the time the employee got in and out. Yet,
software companies have written a Web GUI, Voice Recognition Telephone
systems and swipe cards. Although these interfaces are different, all

their
underlying rules are the same. For example, the employee cannot come in

to
work before 7:00 AM. Despite the interfaces are different, they all

follow
the same rule. Now, assuming you go with your 2-Tier design... the

company
decides to change the rule to 8:00 AM... Wow, modification on 3 UI's.


And just how long will it take to modify 3 UI's? (seconds/ minutes /hours
please?)


How is 5 seconds for you? That includes opening up my IDE, going to the
class, method and changing the method, assuming it was hard coded... (Of
course, we don't do that in the real world. It's either in a database or a
config file which is read by another Class and supplied to the business
layer.) The GUI does not even have to be modified because it will just
assume the new value. How long will that take you?

Careful how you answer this?

This is exactly what I am looking for......

Hmmm.......

So,
where's the difference in the user's needs in this scenario? Take the
example of a retail application, since your major use for the internet is
to
buy things. A company may open a website to sell their items, a 1-800
service over the phone and a retail store. In case you want a solid
example, take pizza hut as one. It has all three means of getting to
the customer... (Pizza hut is working on a central site, where people in one location can take the order and forward it to their regional stores.) All the rules are the same, you make your order, get charged and tax is added into it plus other fees. Yeah, the rates may be different but if you

design
it differently, you'd just grab it from the database and feed that
information to the interface. Even though each GUI may have additional
features, the basic rules of doing business still applies.

Man, this feels weird, it's like teaching a high school student to break

bad
habits!!!

WRONG, COPY AND PASTE AND MODIFY and let each method of order entry stand
alone by itself.


HELLO!!! Are you brain dead or just brain dead... The maintenance
nightmare of chaning a business rule means changing it in all three
interfaces...
Let's take a look at the time to copy paste and modify and single
method....will I be able to use a hot key...why NO....OK.

Control-C, Control-V 3 TIMES........Opppppsssss repetive stress
syndrome.......


Hah!!! At least I don't have to do that "MENIAL" task fo cut and paste.
But you see, you have to do that more than three times, if the code expands
to more than 1 line in a method. Duh...
How many seconds is that????????? Let's compare that time with the OOP
method?????


Cut and paste is FAR TOO LONG compared to OOP!!!

THE FACT that YOU ACCEPT BUGS as a WAY of LIFE for SOFTWARE
means your NOT INNOVATIVE as YOU THINK YOU ARE.

At least I'm smart enough to realize that not everything in life is

perfect.
To assume that it is is plain stupid. And because of this assumption, I
find a constant role in correcting the imperfection and making people's

life
better.
WHERE IS THAT IMAGINATION YOU keep talking about???????


However, bugs are not the only reason to issue updates and patches. You

can
improve performance as technology becomes better. For a simple minded
person's sake... Consider that he created software that used, bubble sort algorithm inside a method. Later on, he found out that a quick sort
algorithm will make his application work better... making the change on

the
DLL across all applications that used his component is easier than

changing
all the applications with that logic. EVEN WITH CUT AND PASTE!!!

WRONG. It's all encapsulated in a STANDARD METHOD......EASY to SEARCH and
REPLACE


Sure you can "encapsulate" it in a standard method (by the way,
encapsulation is an OOP feature, it's one of the three pillars of an OOP
language). But realize that you're one step closer to OOP (how ironic).
And it's not like, I would just "SEARCH" and REPLACE it with the new code
lines. I can still do your "SEARCH" and "REPLACE." But if my component
used in 20 other different systems... I don't need to do it 20 times.
Changing it in one place is good enough. How about you? Tick tock, tick
tock... time is precious, you're not done yet cutting and pasting?

You ALSO KNOW WHICH PAGES need to be replaced in the first place....Why is
this possible? K.I.S.S. Because the pages are named properly and can easily figure out which pages should have been replace just by similarly named
pages...

EASY AS PIE......

Like I said, I don't even need to know which pages need replacing... I just
change it in one method and the other pages takes advantage of it. Which
one is a K.I.S.S. here now? Like you said, Keep It Simple, Stupid!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS A RIDDLE FOR YOU
Full OOP = "fill in the blank here" = Full Plate of Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------------


What's the use of the riddle? And it's seems to be missing another "O."
There is a lot more where this came from.......
As we wait, there will be more revealed bugs, patches that break other
patches, and fixes that unfixes other fixes.


Can you say honestly, that you've never changed your application once it
went to production. Or do you call it an entirely different product every new release...
Oh well, so much for ENCAPSULATION when patches break other patches...but then that's OK with you since you, Mr. INNOVATION, have accepted bugs
as a fact of life.
Yes, I have accepted bugs as a natural fact of life... and so is famine

and
war and every little evil in this world. Not to accept it is to live a
false life. But should that stop me from putting out my patches or

getting
them, the answer is definitely NO. In a digital world, no matter how

secure
your application is, it's just plain nonsense to think that you are safe
from every hacker in this world. Nor should you assume that your
application works perfectly. One should design their system for growth,
adaptation and presentation. Perfection, is a false goal. As a

seasoned developer, I know that not everyone can be satisfied by your work. And
that's why, patches are released one right after the other. Why is it,

that
Norton AntiVirus and McAffee, producing updates to their systems? They

are
afterall, somewhat reliable. That's because it's a never ending battle.
Besides, life does not stop because your application has been rid of bugs. You can constantly improve on it, give it more features and make it more
user friendly. Like I said, fixing bugs is not the only reason why you
issue a patch. Now, isn't that innovation? But I guess, I have to thank you for calling me as such. (NOT!!!)

Here's the real plus of N-Tier design that I keep on forgetting to include in my past messages. N-Tier development allows me to concentrate more on building the application rather than spending time on the "infrastructure" of my product. If you don't understand that, you can read up on Microsoft DNA or J2EE development. They'll explain to you what I meant.

As for the moment, J2EE has the better infrastructure than Microsoft.

Only,
Microsoft has the better IDE than most J2EE compliant tool I've used

before.
That includes JBuilder... really need to improve it a whole lot more to
come par with Visual Studio. And if you think Microsoft has a patch every 2
months or so, JBuilder has a new version every 3 to 6 months. My point is,
no matter what technology you use, you'll constantly encounter bugs in

the system. Even the "glorified" mainframe applications have bugs. Remember, Y2K? Now, that's a perfect example of how hairy it was to modify 2-Tier
applications. (As most COBOL programs have that very nature.) If it were an N-Tier architecture... as I did with my clients... all I needed was a patch from microsoft and modified one module. Beat that with your cut and paste!!! (And yes, the companies continued to operate even after Y2K.)


WRONG. YOU CAN"T SAY that 2-TIER was to blame for making that
difficult.....YOU don't even know if it was 2-Tier to begin with....these
were a lot of mainframes and databases logic...done long time ago and done
for performance reasons......DON"T even bring that as an example......

OUT OF CONTEXT AND REACHING......


WHAT!!! YOU'RE REALLY FUNNY. MOST MAINFRAME PROGRAMS ARE 2-TIER DESIGNS.
THE ONLY NEW ONES ARE COMING UP WITH MODULARIZED STYLE OF CODING.
UNFORTUNATELY, COBOL IS NOT AN OOP LANGUAGE, BUT THEY'VE REALIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF N-TIER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH MODULES. IN FACT, I'VE HEARD OF A
NEW GENERATION OF COBOL, WHICH THEY CALL OBJECT-COBOL. AND EVEN IF THEIR
REASON WAS PERFORMANCE, IT WAS STILL A NIGHTMARE TO CHANGE. I THINK, THAT
WAS YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT WAS FOR PERFORMANCE. BUT NOW THAT MACHINES ARE
MUCH FASTER THAN THEY USED TO BE, CODES RUN MUCH FASTER NOW THAT MAINTENANCE
BECOMES A MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR.

I come to wonder, how do you build "internationalized" versions of your
applications. It must be a gruesome task to change its feature from english
to spanish to french. Oh, I can just imagine the currencies and the dates (in case you didn't know, some countries use comma's instead of dots in
numbers, and dots instead of slashes)... Thinking of how to do it in a

two
tier application gives me the horror of doing everything ALL OVER AGAIN on the same logical code. That is one piece where your "CUT" and "PASTE"
wouldn't work too well... Still convinced that your favorite "CUT" and
"PASTE" will do the job? Don't ask me how, but for seasoned developers
(it's a trade secret for N-Tier developers and OOP programmers)... this

is
an easy task with OOP and N-Tier development. Having a different method

for
each language is not even necessary if you design it right. Just

remember,
after it is all said and done, currency representation and dates, no

matter
what the culture is, are all represented the same way in .NET at the

end.
YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL APPS for the WEB.

AND I SUPPOSE YOU DO??? MR. 2-TIER GUY AND KNOW IT ALL? I EVEN SHOWED SOME
OF THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS"
Take a look at Microsoft Web site....is every web page in english have a
corresponding foreign language...NOPE....WHY is this?
How about just FRENCH or GERMAN? Still NO.....

You know, you're experience of the INTERNET is so LIMITED. Have you
checked, Yahoo lately (http://fr.yahoo.com)? Or other "media" websites that
needed another language? Duh!!! how lame can you get? But just to satisfy
you're "Microsoft" bashing stuff... try this url,
http://www.microsoft.com/France/. Please feel free to put "German" for
"France" if you wanna see the "German" site. I GUESS YOU'RE THE ONE WHO
KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL WEB APPS. In case you didn't notice, each
company does it differently. You know, I feel pitty for your lack of
"experience."
I will let you think about this for a while

Jul 19 '05 #25

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ed**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Oh, another thing.

I use methods, functions, whatever you want to call them....That gives me
the ability to know exactly what pages are affected before making changes...
Step 1a. Use Search on the method name first and remember the number of
matches found.
Step 1b. Use Search on the ENTIRE Method and see if the number of matches is the same...
Step 2. Examine the pages that are going to be affected by the method
modification or update before doing a replace. Ask yourself, "Is this
right? Is this everything?"

( NOTE: for Step 2. You don't do this with OOP because OOP Elitists are TOO ARROGANT to think THEIR OBJECT MODEL MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT as they spent
several months anticipating future changes and plus they used Design
Patterns that have never been wrong. However, OOP Elitists can always invoke the "Software is always going to have bugs" excuse.
NOTE: OOP can't use this EXCUSE in a hospital environment...that's why OOP
isn't used and they are still working with COBOL. COBOL people don't say,
"Software is always going to have bugs" so too bad mr. dead
patient....Imagine if the COBOL programmer said that with TAXES, MR. OOP
Programmer)

Step 3. Do the replace and make sure the numbers match from Step 1.
Step 1. Modify the object that needs the change.
Step 2. Compile!!! (This would be step 4 (really 5) for you...)
Step 3. Deploy!!! (This will be step 5 (really 6) for you...)

I know my objects, if I design them... The same level of comfort you get
from your 2-tier design. As you can see, I scrapped your steps, 1 through 3
in my approach.

THE OOP METHOD
Let's see...how long does steps 1-3 take.....hmmmmmm minute or so......with the OOP method, you're still figuring out and re-familiarizing yourself with the object model you forgot 2 weeks ago cause you don't even know which
method OR methods to change in the first place because you totally FORGOT as you went to other projects. There goes your so called OOP 2-second
maintenance change...it's now at least a 2-3 days change as you FORGOT the
Object Model..OH but WAIT...in order to do this...you might have to make a
SIGNIFICANT change to the Object Model as that was never mentioned in the
specifications...OH YES it WAS.....YOU JUST didn't read it properly or
didn't understand us correctly.......finger pointing......UH
OHHHHHHHHHHHHH...more OOP re-design.........we need another 6 weeks to
re-think this through....

Didn't think I would have pointed that little fact out, huh?????

WELL, YOU LOSE.......MR. OOP.....because we use K.I.S.S. and we can easily handle these changes that were never specified because we didn't confuse the crap out ourselves in the first place as we type a few more lines, BIG
DEAL.....

......HA HA HA HA HA

STICK THAT IN YOUR EAR......

LET"S SEE IF ANY MICROSOFT PEOPLE HERE ARE WILLING TO ARGUE...HOW ABOUT
MVP's or GURUS.....LET"S SEE IF THEY ARE WILLING TO STICK THEIR NAME OUT and LOSE just like YOU did Mr. OOP......


I didn't lose... you did. I only have 3 steps unlike your 6 step
approach!!!
THE RIDDLE IS STILL HERE............TRY TO GUESS........
--------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS A RIDDLE FOR YOU
Full OOP = "fill in the blank here" = Full Plate of Problems
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Jul 19 '05 #26

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:uD**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Let's keep adding things while I am still at it.

OOP is only good at making changes that have already been PRE-ANTICIPATED
and designed into the object model at the start. Hence, Design Patterns,
gang of four, blah, blah, crap. Hence, if it's not in the specifications,
your are royally screwed...Oh, but I though OOP can easily make
changes....NOPE, sorry, OOP can only make changes IF you had a CRYSTAL BALL and could see it happening before your started your object model.....

This is so not true!!! That's a lot of CRAP to be said for someone who is
swimming in unknown waters... Be careful, a shark is gaining fast at you...
2-Tier, being so very simple, can easily handle UN-ANTICIPATED changes and
changes that have never even been mention in the design specs. 2-Tier may
have to type just a TINY bit more, but being able to handle UNFORSEEN
changes is what typically happens in the real world. We don't have to
re-design an entire object model because we are not so ridicously abstracted in some OOP glass house up in some mountain. 2-Tier architecture map
directly to business actual methods so it's easy to figure out and change.
We encapsulate via methods as that's what happens in real life as well.


Please note, that you're one step into OOP development by using
ecapsulation. Unlike 2-Tier design, it leads to maintenance nightmares
specially when rules change. Yes, with two tier design, you can anticipate
changes (it's bad enough if you only need to maintain one application,
really gets worse when many applications use the same logic). Let me give
you an example... a simple logon screen. Say you have three applications
that uses the same style of logging (users and passwords in a database).
Then, all of a sudden, the company said, I want it implemented through an
LDAP server. Yikes... go to three applications and change that code!!! I,
on the other hand will only need to go to one component, modify it and
redeploy. How much easier does it get? Or say, you needed to change the
colors and appearance of your "logon" box. (I purposely included
appearance because, I know you're going to give me that CSS way of modifying
things, which by the way, in it's nature is also object oriented. Notice
the "." in the syntax?) Hmmm, I only need to change the one control I
created (which is OOP technology by the way) and I'm done with it. Beat
that with your 2-tier non-OOP design. You have to go through each page and
manually change the "HTML" content of your applications (applications, as in
plural of application). Now, if you anticipated this change, you'd probably
write the whole block that contains the logon screen in one line so you can
easily cut and paste. (What was that I keep on seeing in your posts about
K.I.S.S.? All of a sudden I have to replace it everywhere...) Also, with
OOP, i'm able to promote the same look and feel across my applications and
not worry about future changes in appearances. And with OOP, I can easily
use the IDE's "property" dialog box to change things in my control without
having to write a single code. My wrists are thanking me for that right
now. And I only had to write it once...
OOP = good ONLY if you know what's going to happen(SPEC ONLY)

When we get new specs, we just add it to our object model and start
implementing... same as you, when you need to add it to your "Flowchart!!!"
K.I.S.S. / 2-Tier = good if you know what's going to happen AND also good if your DON'T know what's going to happen (with SPECS and WITHOUT SPECS)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE GIVEN UP.....OK.......

Oh, you still got to answer the riddle.........OK......Well, maybe I don't
want to....got to have a little mercy....

Jul 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
Then, I would not bother buying your products if I only knew the company you
worked for. Not anticipating bugs means you don't do QA. It's like putting
in an airplane part without testing it coz you believe it has no non
conforming characteristics and later on finding out, it's somewhere in the
middle of the pacific ocean. The whole idea of QA is to have a level of
confidence that the program is going to do it's job knowing that it is prone
to have bugs before being deployed in production. Or have you forgotten
that in Software Engineering 101.
"Umpa Lumpa" <po********@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Well, the day you can develope perfect software, let me know until then, you are not welcome at our corp with that mindset.

NEXT.

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
All this blabbering... what that has to do with "YOU AS A DEVELOPER"
writing supposedly "BUG FREE" software... You've never made mistakes
before. If it wasn't for OOP... 63,000 bugs would have taken more than 3
years. I wonder, how long would it take to cut and paste code... Oh no!!!
FOREVER!!!!
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.

Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp

Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,

Windows 2000 fixes released -
63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html

"....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first service pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack
apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "

YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....

Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a TWO (2) SECOND CHANGE

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......

"One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING DONG.......TOO LATE....

OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that object
model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still not fixed yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....

I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know until
it
crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows
2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3 years to work
on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's ONLY
GOOD FOR
KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when and

how they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO
easy to CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or class
or object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet in
the
OH
SO ever GREAT OOP model....
WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA..THERE is that OOP for you.....

STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????



"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste
> programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.
>
> Colin
>



Jul 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
Just to add... isn't that what QA is all about. Because the company
anticipates the program will have bugs and they want to catch it before it
goes out to production. I don't know about your company, but some companies
have serveral levels of QA testing. Some of them even do parallel testing
to make sure it works just like the older version and expect the new program
to work where the other failed.
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:#n**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Then, I would not bother buying your products if I only knew the company you worked for. Not anticipating bugs means you don't do QA. It's like putting in an airplane part without testing it coz you believe it has no non
conforming characteristics and later on finding out, it's somewhere in the
middle of the pacific ocean. The whole idea of QA is to have a level of
confidence that the program is going to do it's job knowing that it is prone to have bugs before being deployed in production. Or have you forgotten
that in Software Engineering 101.
"Umpa Lumpa" <po********@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Well, the day you can develope perfect software, let me know until then, you
are not welcome at our corp with that mindset.

NEXT.

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
All this blabbering... what that has to do with "YOU AS A DEVELOPER"
writing supposedly "BUG FREE" software... You've never made mistakes
before. If it wasn't for OOP... 63,000 bugs would have taken more than 3
years. I wonder, how long would it take to cut and paste code... Oh no!!!
FOREVER!!!!
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.
>
> Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp
>
> Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
>
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
> OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,
>
> Windows 2000 fixes released -
> 63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html
>
> "....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of
Microsoft's
key
> developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first

service
> pack was released less than six months later. The latest service
pack > apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "
>
> YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....
>
> Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a TWO
> (2) SECOND CHANGE
>
> TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......
>
> "One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING

DONG.......TOO
> LATE....
>
> OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that
object > model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still not

fixed
> yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....
>
> I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know

until
it
> crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows
> 2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3 years

to work
> on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's ONLY GOOD FOR
> KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when and how
> they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO easy
to
> CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or
class or > object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet

in the
OH
> SO ever GREAT OOP model....
>
>
> WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA..THERE
is
> that OOP for you.....
>
> STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
> BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
>
> HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to

cut-'n-paste > > programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.
> >
> > Colin
> >
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Oq**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
No study. My own experience.

I think you need to start taking your meds again.

<snip>

Don't feed the trolls.

If I had copious free time, I might expand on where Mr. nospam is
correct in some aspects, but not nearly all. But his mind is not
open, and I believe that reasonable viewers will take his zealotry
with a grain of salt.
Jul 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
Please let your customers know that your company has the mind set of,
"Software will always contain BUGS" and our company will never re-examine
their own internal core ways of developing software to product bug free
software.

I am pretty sure your customers will be happy to know that.

Ta Ta.....
"Umpa Lumpa" <po********@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Well, the day you can develope perfect software, let me know until then, you are not welcome at our corp with that mindset.

NEXT.

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
All this blabbering... what that has to do with "YOU AS A DEVELOPER"
writing supposedly "BUG FREE" software... You've never made mistakes
before. If it wasn't for OOP... 63,000 bugs would have taken more than 3
years. I wonder, how long would it take to cut and paste code... Oh no!!!
FOREVER!!!!
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.

Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp

Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,

Windows 2000 fixes released -
63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html

"....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of Microsoft's key developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first service pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack
apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "

YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....

Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a TWO (2) SECOND CHANGE

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......

"One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING DONG.......TOO LATE....

OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that object
model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still not fixed yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....

I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know until
it
crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows
2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3 years to work
on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's ONLY
GOOD FOR
KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when and

how they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO
easy to CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or class
or object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet in
the
OH
SO ever GREAT OOP model....
WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA..THERE is that OOP for you.....

STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????



"Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste
> programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.
>
> Colin
>



Jul 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
Are you saying Microsoft doesn't even have a QA department or process in
place?

Just remember Microsoft has more dollars than your company does and most
likely has the best QA process around; IF not, Microsoft has the most funded
QA.

HOWEVER, with all those dollars, programmers, and time, 63,000 bugs still
existed....

Now add that to your QA logic.
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:O9**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Just to add... isn't that what QA is all about. Because the company
anticipates the program will have bugs and they want to catch it before it
goes out to production. I don't know about your company, but some companies have serveral levels of QA testing. Some of them even do parallel testing
to make sure it works just like the older version and expect the new program to work where the other failed.
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:#n**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Then, I would not bother buying your products if I only knew the company you
worked for. Not anticipating bugs means you don't do QA. It's like

putting
in an airplane part without testing it coz you believe it has no non
conforming characteristics and later on finding out, it's somewhere in the
middle of the pacific ocean. The whole idea of QA is to have a level of
confidence that the program is going to do it's job knowing that it is

prone
to have bugs before being deployed in production. Or have you forgotten
that in Software Engineering 101.
"Umpa Lumpa" <po********@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Well, the day you can develope perfect software, let me know until then,
you
are not welcome at our corp with that mindset.

NEXT.

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> All this blabbering... what that has to do with "YOU AS A
DEVELOPER" > writing supposedly "BUG FREE" software... You've never made mistakes > before. If it wasn't for OOP... 63,000 bugs would have taken more

than
3
> years. I wonder, how long would it take to cut and paste code... Oh no!!!
> FOREVER!!!!
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.
> >
> > Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
> > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp
> >
> > Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
> >
> >
> > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> >
> > OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,
> >
> > Windows 2000 fixes released -
> > 63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html
> >
> > "....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of

Microsoft's key
> > developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first
service
> > pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack > > apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "
> >
> > YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....
> >
> > Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a
TWO
> > (2) SECOND CHANGE
> >
> > TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......
> >
> > "One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING
DONG.......TOO
> > LATE....
> >
> > OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that object > > model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still
not fixed
> > yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....
> >
> > I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know until
> it
> > crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows > > 2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3

years to
> work
> > on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's
ONLY GOOD
> FOR
> > KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when

and how
> > they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO

easy
to
> > CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or class
or
> > object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet

in the
> OH
> > SO ever GREAT OOP model....
> >
> >
> > WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA..THERE
is
> > that OOP for you.....
> >
> > STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
> > BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
> >
> > HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste > > > programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.
> > >
> > > Colin
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
EGO!!!!!

Just FEEDING it right BACK to the OOP EGO JUNKIES

"Umpa Lumpa" <po********@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:uN**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
No i am referring to the other fucknut that has an ego the size of everest.

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:#n**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Then, I would not bother buying your products if I only knew the company you
worked for. Not anticipating bugs means you don't do QA. It's like

putting
in an airplane part without testing it coz you believe it has no non
conforming characteristics and later on finding out, it's somewhere in the
middle of the pacific ocean. The whole idea of QA is to have a level of
confidence that the program is going to do it's job knowing that it is

prone
to have bugs before being deployed in production. Or have you forgotten
that in Software Engineering 101.
"Umpa Lumpa" <po********@127.0.0.129> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Well, the day you can develope perfect software, let me know until then,
you
are not welcome at our corp with that mindset.

NEXT.

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eu**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> All this blabbering... what that has to do with "YOU AS A
DEVELOPER" > writing supposedly "BUG FREE" software... You've never made mistakes > before. If it wasn't for OOP... 63,000 bugs would have taken more

than
3
> years. I wonder, how long would it take to cut and paste code... Oh no!!!
> FOREVER!!!!
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> news:O2**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Here YOU GO, MR. OOP.
> >
> > Microsoft Acknowledges Glitch in XP SP1
> > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110031,00.asp
> >
> > Let's see WHERE IS THAT ENCAPSULATION????????
> >
> >
> > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> >
> > OOhhhhhh, REMEMBER THIS ONE,
> >
> > Windows 2000 fixes released -
> > 63,000 thousand bugs in Windows 2000
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-1021295.html
> >
> > "....however, the operating system was ridiculed by one of

Microsoft's key
> > developers for containing 63,000 known defects and bugs. The first
service
> > pack was released less than six months later. The latest service pack > > apparently has about 675 bug fixes. "
> >
> > YES, IF I HAD A PENNY for every OOP BUG....
> >
> > Oh, are we on SERVICE PACK 4.....but I thought OOP was able to make a
TWO
> > (2) SECOND CHANGE
> >
> > TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.......
> >
> > "One Thousand and ONE, One Thousand and TWO"......... DING
DONG.......TOO
> > LATE....
> >
> > OH well, I GUESS 63,000 is just TOO MUCH......So much for that object > > model........the year is 2003, Service Pack 4 is out.....still
not fixed
> > yet even though it's supposed to be EASY with OOP.....
> >
> > I wonder what the numbers are for Windows 2003...we just don't know until
> it
> > crashes. AND I DON"T HEAR Microsoft touting more NINES than Windows > > 2000....could we have seen 6 or 7 NINES....They had at least 3

years to
> work
> > on it......NOPE.....TO BUSY WITH the OOP SECURITY MODEL THAT's
ONLY GOOD
> FOR
> > KNOWN ATTACKS......TOO bad the bad guys don't tell Microsoft when

and how
> > they are going to attack next.....YOU KNOW that OOP make things SO

easy
to
> > CHANGE....you would think there is this ONE generic business or class
or
> > object for buffer overflows......I guess they haven't found it yet

in the
> OH
> > SO ever GREAT OOP model....
> >
> >
> > WELL......................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA..THERE
is
> > that OOP for you.....
> >
> > STICK THAT IN YOUR E.A.R.
> > BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
> >
> > HOW'S THAT FOR DOCUMENTATION???????????????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Colin Young" <x@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > If I had a penny for every bug that was traced back to cut-'n-paste > > > programming, I wouldn't be reading this forum.
> > >
> > > Colin
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #33

P: n/a

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:uy**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Forgotten to replace one piece....HOW about the other way around? With OOP,
making the change in ONE place doesn't mean that EVERY PLACE is going to

be
right.....Ohhhhhh....did I hear Design Pattern????????


Hey, mr. smart guy (NOT!!!) isn't search and replace prone to forgetting

to replace a piece too. At least in OOP, I can modify just that inner code of the method. And if you design it right with interfaces, I can implement a
totally new class that will fix the problem. As for you, you have to
maintain an "Inventory" of the pages you needed to modify? How lame is
that... next thing I'll see is you'd probably be looking for spare parts... And thank the Maker of Design Patterns... It makes my life so much
easier!!!

Implement a totally NEW class...You mean Inheritance...OOoooohhhh doesn't
Design Patterns say,
"Don't Use Inheritance"

OK, now you got some code that relies on "LEGACY" code......Funny, that's
what Inheritance means. After some time, now you got MUSEUM full of CRAP
legacy CODE. Now, after a change or 2, you have got different versions with
all SIMILAR names with every single OOP keyword to over ride, seal, shadow,
virtual an who knows what..... WOW!!! That will be just great for any
seasoned developer to start with..... HOW IRONIC.

What if it's a new business logic? Heck, we don't even need that! Where

are > > those Design Patterns NOW?


Don't even need that? you end up with a spaghetti code coz you needed to
insert that new rule inside your pieced-together, cut and paste crap.
How do you know if the Object Model was correct in this INSTANCE????


Duh!!! You make a class for only that one function... And you use it
wherever it's needed. So, it's that instance. And with an object model,

I can logically see my components unlike a "Flowchart" that's several pages
long.

With your bloated legacy Object Model, you have "inherited-instances-legacy
code all over the place. All with similar names that you have no idea which
one does which. You have to read through every version comments...NO wait,
CODE, just to make sure.

With Search and Replace, at least I know and have a list of what's being
changed.....With OOP, you HOPE, READ H.O.P.E. that your Object Model was
done right and took into considering this NEW change that is being
added.....
A NEW CHANGE, that YOU DIDN'T anticpate from the very beginning.
A new change that was never designed into the Object Model.


That's why... I can always introduce a new class to implement the new
change. And if it has nothing to do with the other layers, I don't even
have to worry about my GUI or my Data Layer. With cut and paste... oops,

I modified a pattern that was not suppose to be.

WIth cut and paste, the HOUSE is kept clean instead of legacy code.
Uh, Ohhhh....Did I hear on the News again another Windows Update ..Critical
Update from Microsoft.....


What is it with you and Windows Update..... That's totally Microsoft's
problem. Let me put it this way, do you see JBOSS issue a critical

update? It's also totally OOP!!! The point here is, no matter what architecture you use, you're still prone for errors if you're not carefull enough. At least, they spend the time to fix it, rather than being in denial and claiming
their program is bug free, like you!!!
Stop running from the fact of Windows Update is a clear example of OOP screw
up. DOn't worry, with the next alert, you will be using it AGAIN!

Oh, but since we trust OOP so much, this NEW Update, IS SUPPOSED TO NOT
affect anything IT shouldn't AFFECT...... BUT of course WE DON'T KNOW....


It's less riskier than CUT and PASTE, I tell you that...

PROVE THAT IT"S RISKIER.......DO A STUDY and LET'S SEE.....
MY STUDY SAY 63,000 BUGS are through OOP

WE are SO PROUD of OUR OOP MODEL...IT SHOULD ALWAYS WORK....


"IT SHOULD" not that it really would. And 2-Tier, non-OOP works all the
time? NOT!!!!

WELL, let's look at all the MOM and POP's with simple and old .asp shopping
carts. NEXT, let's compare the number of BUGS they have and the number bugs
that some FULLY OOP solutions has.

Just remember, the OOP people have more programmer and money so don't use
that complexity excuse.

LET"S compare and show the NUMBERS.
HOWEVER, if it DOESN"T WORK, we can use the standard excuse, "BUGS ARE A
FACT OF LIFE, JUST LIKE ANYTHING ELSE"

HOW CONVENIENT????????


It's a fact of life... I dare you to write a program without a bug.
According to statistics for every 15 lines of code you write, you generate
an error in most cases.

YES, but I am able to FIX it...with OOP, they try to fix it and break
something else.
Because, it's not OOP's fault that a "business" decision was made that
caused the problem. Or a programmer miskeyed a simple comma in a code (that was responsible for crashing a probe in venus and I'd bet that was a non OOP code).
YES, LET's SEE WHAT kind of Programmer that way

> It's a proven tool that applications like Word, NotePad, and even VS.NET have built in.... >

What you don't realize is that all the apps you've said also expose COM components that applications can take advantage of. These components are also easily used for N-Tier development.
> I could easily have a bunch of the SAME methods all over the place
> that can be easily "SEARCH and REPLACED" a LOT FASTER than the OOP abstracted,
all in one place N-Tier or 3-Tier design. You must be kidding or just plain insane!!! search and replace all over
rather than changin it in one method?
SAME or LESS amount of TIME. HIGHER ACCURACY and I also KNOW what was
changed.
WRONG, COPY AND PASTE AND MODIFY and let each method of order entry stand alone by itself.


HELLO!!! Are you brain dead or just brain dead... The maintenance
nightmare of chaning a business rule means changing it in all three
interfaces...
Let's take a look at the time to copy paste and modify and single
method....will I be able to use a hot key...why NO....OK.

Control-C, Control-V 3 TIMES........Opppppsssss repetive stress
syndrome.......


Hah!!! At least I don't have to do that "MENIAL" task fo cut and paste.
But you see, you have to do that more than three times, if the code

expands to more than 1 line in a method. Duh...
How many seconds is that????????? Let's compare that time with the OOP
method?????
Cut and paste is FAR TOO LONG compared to OOP!!!
SEARCH and REPLACE, not copy and paste
DLL across all applications that used his component is easier than

changing all the applications with that logic. EVEN WITH CUT AND

PASTE!!!

WRONG. It's all encapsulated in a STANDARD METHOD......EASY to SEARCH and REPLACE


Sure you can "encapsulate" it in a standard method (by the way,
encapsulation is an OOP feature, it's one of the three pillars of an OOP
language). But realize that you're one step closer to OOP (how ironic).

WRONG, FULLY OOP has STEPPED toooo far beyond it's bounds and usefulness

And it's not like, I would just "SEARCH" and REPLACE it with the new code
lines. I can still do your "SEARCH" and "REPLACE." But if my component
used in 20 other different systems... I don't need to do it 20 times.
Changing it in one place is good enough. How about you? Tick tock, tick
tock... time is precious, you're not done yet cutting and pasting?

DID YOU EVER HEAR OF GLOBAL SEARCH AND REPLACE????

REPEAT, GLOBAL SEARCH AND REPLACE...that look inside a folder and works it's
way down there.


You ALSO KNOW WHICH PAGES need to be replaced in the first place....Why is this possible? K.I.S.S. Because the pages are named properly and can easily figure out which pages should have been replace just by similarly

named
pages... EASY AS PIE......


Like I said, I don't even need to know which pages need replacing... I

just change it in one method and the other pages takes advantage of it. Which
one is a K.I.S.S. here now? Like you said, Keep It Simple, Stupid!!!

HERE IS ANOTHER RULE.

IF IT WORKS, DON'T MESS WITH IT
THAT's EVEN simplier....
Y2K? Now, that's a perfect example of how hairy it was to modify 2-Tier applications. (As most COBOL programs have that very nature.) If it were an N-Tier architecture... as I did with my clients... all I needed
was a patch from microsoft and modified one module. Beat that with your cut and paste!!! (And yes, the companies continued to operate even after
Y2K.)
WRONG. YOU CAN"T SAY that 2-TIER was to blame for making that
difficult.....YOU don't even know if it was 2-Tier to begin with....these were a lot of mainframes and databases logic...done long time ago and done for performance reasons......DON"T even bring that as an example......

OUT OF CONTEXT AND REACHING......

WHAT!!! YOU'RE REALLY FUNNY. MOST MAINFRAME PROGRAMS ARE 2-TIER DESIGNS.
THE ONLY NEW ONES ARE COMING UP WITH MODULARIZED STYLE OF CODING.
UNFORTUNATELY, COBOL IS NOT AN OOP LANGUAGE, BUT THEY'VE REALIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF N-TIER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH MODULES. IN FACT, I'VE HEARD OF

A NEW GENERATION OF COBOL, WHICH THEY CALL OBJECT-COBOL. AND EVEN IF THEIR
REASON WAS PERFORMANCE, IT WAS STILL A NIGHTMARE TO CHANGE. I THINK, THAT
WAS YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT WAS FOR PERFORMANCE.

ARGUMENT was for all good characteristics.....like RELIABILITY.....
AND I SUPPOSE YOU DO??? MR. 2-TIER GUY AND KNOW IT ALL? I EVEN SHOWED SOME OF THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS"
Take a look at Microsoft Web site....is every web page in english have a corresponding foreign language...NOPE....WHY is this?
How about just FRENCH or GERMAN? Still NO.....

You know, you're experience of the INTERNET is so LIMITED. Have you
checked, Yahoo lately (http://fr.yahoo.com)? Or other "media" websites

that needed another language? Duh!!! how lame can you get? But just to satisfy you're "Microsoft" bashing stuff... try this url,
http://www.microsoft.com/France/. Please feel free to put "German" for
"France" if you wanna see the "German" site. I GUESS YOU'RE THE ONE WHO
KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL WEB APPS. In case you didn't notice, each company does it differently. You know, I feel pitty for your lack of
"experience."


Let's take a look at the Microsoft site CLOSELY.....

Seems like the MENUS are NOT EVEN THE SAME. another point is that most of
the pages are simple INFO pages...NO BUSINESS LOGIC.....

http://www.microsoft.com/france/offi...ez/default.asp
Alta Vista Babel Fish translation

Microsoft does not sell in France its products on line and chose an indirect
mode of marketing.
If you wish to acquire our products as of now, contact your usual retailer.
If not you can also do it via partners specialists who will be able to
analyze your needs and to implement the products Microsoft and other
data-processing solutions.
Having multiple languages is a LOT harder than you think, MR. OOP.

It has a lot to do with things OTHER than programming...It's lot about
understanding the MANY MANY differences in the foreign country as well that
are NOT language related.......


Jul 19 '05 #34

P: n/a
comments INLINE BELOW.......................

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Implement a totally NEW class...You mean Inheritance...OOoooohhhh doesn't
Design Patterns say,
"Don't Use Inheritance"

I don't know who was it that taught you design patterns... Don't use
inheritance??? Have you heard of at least of the simple "Factory"

pattern? There are plenty more "Design" patterns that user inheritance. I suggest
that you don't say anything that will really confirm you're "STUPID."

From the GANG of FOUR book, that's where it says, ..not to use inheritance
if you don't have to."
OK, now you got some code that relies on "LEGACY" code......Funny, that's what Inheritance means. After some time, now you got MUSEUM full of CRAP legacy CODE. Now, after a change or 2, you have got different versions with
all SIMILAR names with every single OOP keyword to over ride, seal,

shadow,
virtual an who knows what..... WOW!!! That will be just great for any
seasoned developer to start with..... HOW IRONIC.


I'm still wondering who thaught you PROGRAMMING. LEGACY and INHERITANCE

are two different things. Carefull, people might "THINK" (if not confirm) that you're "STUPID." And I don't know how you define "LEGACY" but, OOP never
comes to mind when you say "LEGACY" programs. What mostly comes to mind in terms of legacy are "CUSTOM" programs (and some are of age). The stuff both you and I make no matter what kind architecture we choose.

And about those similar names... the only time you can have two functions
of similar names in OOP is if you're doing function overloading. And to an OOP programmer, that's a good thing. But for you, well... I don't want to say anything that will incriminate you to look "STUPID."

Inheritance MEANS LEGACY, PERIOD

You said it yourself, something along the lines of ...if I want to modify
this method, all I have to do is "INHERIT IT" and then ANY other thing that
calls the original method doesn't break......

So you made a modification, BUT left some of the OLD stuff around to
HOPEFULLY keep it working.....

With your bloated legacy Object Model, you have

"inherited-instances-legacy
code all over the place. All with similar names that you have no idea

which
one does which. You have to read through every version comments...NO

wait,
CODE, just to make sure.


At least a new developer can start understanding the program with just the
comments. Unlike your new developers who would have to go through TONS of
code. And you're wrong... That's the beauty of OBJECTS. Unless, we had

to change that piece, we don't need to know the implementation piece of it. We only need to know what it does and what each parameter needs.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. You always have to goto the CODE to be sure.

Comments, method names, Class names all have a good degree of vagueness.
THEY CAN ONLY DESCRIBE SO MUCH.

It's like, "Well this method name means this, but I am NOT totally 100%
SURE. But OOP says to trust the naming convention and comments of some
other developer....Ha Ha Ha Ha...."

Even if the developer is your best developer doesn't mean the new developer
is going to know what the other developer meant....they don't see through
the same glasses all the time....

Now, when you program in any language, do you have to "know" how the object's methods are implemented (even in .NET)? I think not... we only need to know what it
does, it's functions (and overloads) and the parameters... Now how is it
again in procedural type programs? Oh yeah, you've got to trace through or simulate it. Then, if you're lucky, the developer made some documentation
in a piece of restaurant napkin somewhere. By the way, if you don't know
how to read an Object Model, don't bother. I would now understand why you
despise something you don't understand.
WIth cut and paste, the HOUSE is kept clean instead of legacy code.

Except for a few "OOPS!!!" and "OH, NO... LET ME GET BACK TO IT." here

and there that you forgot to change!!! Hah hah hah, how IRONIC... I have to
use the word you despise the most to describe your problem.
Even if I forgot something, I can readily see it and fix it right away as
it's SIMPLE.

Easy to remember what was done as it's SIMPLE...
READ, S.I.M.P.L.E.....
ONE MORE TIME, SIMPLE

With OOP, you don't even know about it, you don't know what you did a few
days ago, and then you have to re-familiarize yourself with the OOP
model...AGAIN.


> Uh, Ohhhh....Did I hear on the News again another Windows Update
..Critical
> Update from Microsoft.....
>

What is it with you and Windows Update..... That's totally Microsoft's problem.

So Microsoft is EXEMPT from all their mistakes?????? HA HA HA HA HA
Let me put it this way, do you see JBOSS issue a critical
update?
It's also totally OOP!!! The point here is, no matter what
architecture
you
use, you're still prone for errors if you're not carefull enough. At least,
they spend the time to fix it, rather than being in denial and
claiming their program is bug free, like you!!!

JBOSS....weak and poor example....not as many people use it...and it's not
hated as much as MS and thus not even attacked...Heck the JBOSS people could
be the ones doing some of the attacks anyway

But MS is an ENTERPRISE application...READ...BIG and COMPLEX...READ...OOP is
SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THIS WITH EASE over other methods....

Still is JBOSS, BUG FREE?????? YES or NO?


Stop running from the fact of Windows Update is a clear example of OOP

screw
up. DOn't worry, with the next alert, you will be using it AGAIN!


It's not OOP screw up... It's a program issue... and a human error made
despite rigorous testing and architecture. Can you at least show me a URL
you've worked on, and I promise you, I'd find at least one bug in your
system. Either by sending your site a virus or a security hack... I'll
show you, nothing's safe to a resourceful hacker. I might not even need

to that. I'm sure, just by going to your website, I'll find a thing or two!!! But then again, you might blame it on me... coz you didn't anticipate the
user would not allow cookies or use his mobile device to get in!!!

[keep this in mind]

> Oh, but since we trust OOP so much, this NEW Update, IS SUPPOSED TO NOT > affect anything IT shouldn't AFFECT...... BUT of course WE DON'T

KNOW....
>

It's less riskier than CUT and PASTE, I tell you that...

PROVE THAT IT"S RISKIER.......DO A STUDY and LET'S SEE.....
MY STUDY SAY 63,000 BUGS are through OOP

What is it with you and 63000 bugs from microsoft. Microsoft and other

big companies like IBM are beyond your comprehension. Let's put your
application to the test!!! If we can't find a bug there, then, you might
convert some of us!!!

YES.....that's a GOOD IDEA......PUT MY APPLICATION TO THE TEST......


> WE are SO PROUD of OUR OOP MODEL...IT SHOULD ALWAYS WORK....
>

"IT SHOULD" not that it really would. And 2-Tier, non-OOP works all
the time? NOT!!!!

WELL, let's look at all the MOM and POP's with simple and old .asp

shopping
carts. NEXT, let's compare the number of BUGS they have and the number

bugs
that some FULLY OOP solutions has.


Like I said, let's put your application to the test. Let's see how many
bugs we will find... I'm sure we'll find quite a bit... Then, the next
test is, let's see how long you'd take to correct the bugs.

YEA!!!! EVEN BETTER....LET"S see HOW LONG IT TAKES ME...

THAT WOULD BE EVEN A BETTER TEST....

LET"S compare and show the NUMBERS.


Yeah, put your product on the line!!! Let's see how you stand up against
your claims... If you can't, I suggest you don't reply to this anymore...

YEAH!!! Let's put my app to the test..........

I know I won't be that hard with 65,000 errors for some OOP apps...
YES, but I am able to FIX it...with OOP, they try to fix it and break
something else.


Hmmm, i've fixed a lot of bugs and didn't break another... Why do you
compare bigger companies with your itsy bitsy project... Your project is
"NOTHING" compared to theirs. Let's compare apples to apples... little
projects like yours and mine.

OH, wait just a second...they have thousands and thousands of the BEST
programmers. They have LOTS of money, resources, QA,,,,,,you name it, they
got it.....
SAME or LESS amount of TIME. HIGHER ACCURACY and I also KNOW what was
changed.


WRONG... unless, you've implemented everything... what if you were going
to change someone else's code... YIKES... Oh, I forgot to check that out

of the source control, i didn't get a chance to review it... Excuses, excuses when you miss something... I'd bet.

2-Tier can have source control just like N-Tier.

SEARCH and REPLACE, not copy and paste


And I QUOTE:
Control-C, Control-V 3 TIMES........Opppppsssss repetive stress
> syndrome.......
Duh, isn't that copy and paste, you @#!%^

WEAK and DEAD argument.......

Search and replace or copy and paste 3 times....Just how MUCH time is that
REALLY?

a minute or 2?

WRONG, FULLY OOP has STEPPED toooo far beyond it's bounds and usefulness


WRONG... OOP is a programmer's nirvana!!!

More like an ADDICTION to drugs....short term gain....long term...65,000
bugs

Alta Vista Babel Fish translation


Duh!!! different countries have different needs. But I assure you

they're using OOP derived technology that made it possible for them to maintain such sites.

Really, "different countries have DIFFERENT NEEDS".... What a concept!!!!

How about the difference in a PDA and a notebook computer?
Having multiple languages is a LOT harder than you think, MR. OOP.

It has a lot to do with things OTHER than programming...It's lot about
understanding the MANY MANY differences in the foreign country as well

that
are NOT language related.......


Of course... some of those would be the business decisions (like what age
should you sell alcohol in fance, compared to the US). But have you
implemented an international "site?" Other than the ones i've said, can

you name a few more? All talk and no example... (Oh, don't give the "text"
implementation in different languages and the character fonts... coz that's a very well fact already.)

Hmmmmmm, have I implemented an international site......let me tell you
something.....have you?

I know it's a LOT more than just switching the languages.....


Jul 19 '05 #35

P: n/a
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message news:<OF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
"Terje A. Bergesen" <te****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd*************************@posting.google.co m...
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message news:<e8**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>...
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

.... No, this is not at all a weak argument. When building an app you can
never know in advance what storage your clients will ask for. In my
experience you will find shops that mandate one particular (down to
the version and patch level) database and others who only care about
the total cost. The first may be Oracle (typically for large installs)
the second would be serviced well with PostrgreSQL or MySQL (if your
app can live within the limits of these).

Tying your business logic to a specific DB will make this highly
difficult.


NOPE, Oracle people ASK for J2EE First, not .NET
PostgreSQL and MySQL ask for PERL first, not .NET


How is that relevant. Tying your business logic to a specific DB is
renarkably stupid no matter what DB people are asking for, since it
makes changing DB hard.
So, your analysis is for the few and rare cases.......
It is for all of the cases I have worked with, and with more than
15 years worth of application experience with huge companies, I have
seen quite a few projects.

....
Did you see the "imagine" part? Use your imagination. An enterprice app
developer will frequently find him self in a situation where he will be
asked to provide new DB connectivity, new vertical app connectivity and
new interfaces into his app. What if your customer has suppliers and
customers who agree to start doing business by exchanging XML docs? What
if your customer wants 1-800-MY-BIZZ access into the app you wrote?


IMAGINE???? SUN, IBM and MICROSOFT have been imagining for 3 or 5 years
with billions and billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of
engineers and programmers. Contest after contest......NOTHING.....

People get in a CAR to DRIVE, NOT SURF the .NET.


You have never written an enterprise app of any kind of size. That is
incredibly obvious. You also have absolutely no imagination. The fact
that he was using integration with mobile apps as an example doesn't
mean that those are the only apps you need to integrate with.

When developing real enterprise apps you will *always* find your self
in a situation where you need to provide access to your app from a
number of other applications. These apps usually will integrate with
your app through CORBA or XML. Tying your display logic to your DB or
even business logic is then just plain dumb, since adding new
integration interfaces becomes hard or impossible.

Oh, and before you start another silly commment like: "That never
happens in the real world", I recommend you try a couple of years in
the real world developing real enterprise apps.

.... TABLETS will easily take over PDA's as they can get a standard web
page...PDA will always have a small screen and will always be hard to
use...
Irrelevant gibberish. There are a number of other things that will
want to interface with your enterprise app. You may be asked to add
a blogging interface to it (if it is for web only), you will be
asked to provide information from your application to Tivoli (if you
do not know what Tivoli is you have never developed even a minor
enterprise app) etc.

Again, he was using mobile computing as one example on how you may
have to add additional interfaces to your business logic.

....
Not over time, this is why the sound idea of a 3-tiered architecture
was created. It was developed by people with years and years of
experience in the field, and solves the real problems they have been
facing over the past 30 or so years.


OMG!!!!


What the hell are you babbeling about. You need to get off the drugs
man. OMG had nothing to do with the design of 3-tiered architectures.
The entire computer industry had a lot of input into that design.
NON-ANSWER......Just because you have 30 years of experience
doesn't give you the gift of innovation or creativity.
No, but 30 years of experience from a whole industry made all of the
newbies look for new solutions since the old solutions didn't work
or scale. I do not have 30 years of experience, but 2-tiered
solutions have been in the industry for more than 30 years.
Most innovation comes from BEGINNERS, NEWBIES, who have ZIPPO
EXPERIENCE...
There is a lot of truth in that. People who start out, and who know
the errors that have been made earlier, have made significant
progress in creating better solutions. One of those is multi-tiered
architectures. 2-tiered architectures is the *ancient* way of doing
things, and *anyone* with a minimum amount of experience in the real
world knows they do not work or scale for todays problems. That is
why the new generations of developers created the multi-tiered
architecture.

You are advocating we should go with something far smarter newbies
than you have realized doesn't work, they have realized this
because they have been looking at what the old farts are struggeling
with.

.... WHAT A STUPID ANSWER!!!!!


If learning from other peoples mistakes and come up with new and
better solutions is stupid, I am really glad that the majority of
software developers in the market today are not as "smart" as you
are. Moron.

....
Well, it does appear that you have very little experience, and it also
seems you have very little software design and development education
and experience. J2EE apps are far from slow to develop, and if you know
what you do (i.e. don't have millions of Entity Beans accessed by the
remote clients) then they have excellent performance.

J2EE are slow to develop? in comparison to what, machine language or
assembly?


Not only does it seem that you are, as I say above, a moron, it also
seems that you do not have the ability to read english. Where do I
say above that J2EE apps are slow to develop? Idiot.
--
Terje
Jul 19 '05 #36

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#b*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
comments INLINE BELOW.......................

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Implement a totally NEW class...You mean Inheritance...OOoooohhhh doesn't Design Patterns say,
"Don't Use Inheritance"

I don't know who was it that taught you design patterns... Don't use
inheritance??? Have you heard of at least of the simple "Factory"

pattern?
There are plenty more "Design" patterns that user inheritance. I suggest
that you don't say anything that will really confirm you're "STUPID."

From the GANG of FOUR book, that's where it says, ..not to use inheritance
if you don't have to."


And I quote... "if you don't have to." It's not totally rejected in design
patterns. And that suggestion is good. Why do inheritance in areas where
it is not needed. DUH!!! I guess you need to read up more and increase
youre level of comprehension.
OK, now you got some code that relies on "LEGACY" code......Funny, that's what Inheritance means. After some time, now you got MUSEUM full of CRAP legacy CODE. Now, after a change or 2, you have got different versions with
all SIMILAR names with every single OOP keyword to over ride, seal,

shadow,
virtual an who knows what..... WOW!!! That will be just great for any
seasoned developer to start with..... HOW IRONIC.


I'm still wondering who thaught you PROGRAMMING. LEGACY and INHERITANCE

are
two different things. Carefull, people might "THINK" (if not confirm)

that
you're "STUPID." And I don't know how you define "LEGACY" but, OOP never
comes to mind when you say "LEGACY" programs. What mostly comes to mind

in
terms of legacy are "CUSTOM" programs (and some are of age). The stuff

both
you and I make no matter what kind architecture we choose.

And about those similar names... the only time you can have two functions of similar names in OOP is if you're doing function overloading. And to

an
OOP programmer, that's a good thing. But for you, well... I don't want

to
say anything that will incriminate you to look "STUPID."

Inheritance MEANS LEGACY, PERIOD

You said it yourself, something along the lines of ...if I want to modify
this method, all I have to do is "INHERIT IT" and then ANY other thing

that calls the original method doesn't break......

So you made a modification, BUT left some of the OLD stuff around to
HOPEFULLY keep it working.....


Hmmm... get a book on computer terms... see if they say it's the same. I
think a lot of programmers don't agree to what you're saying. Not because a
system is "OLD" means it's Legacy. It becomes "LEGACY" if it needs to
interface with another system.
With your bloated legacy Object Model, you have

"inherited-instances-legacy
code all over the place. All with similar names that you have no idea

which
one does which. You have to read through every version comments...NO

wait,
CODE, just to make sure.


At least a new developer can start understanding the program with just the comments. Unlike your new developers who would have to go through TONS of code. And you're wrong... That's the beauty of OBJECTS. Unless, we had to
change that piece, we don't need to know the implementation piece of it. We
only need to know what it does and what each parameter needs.


WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. You always have to goto the CODE to be sure.


Duh... did you see the open source code for the "OBJECTS" you use in ASP.
Did you have to know what the code underneath is for the Server, Request,
Response, etc. objects? Hmmm, I wonder, what's your turn around in learning
a language... (FOREVER, since I'm sure, they're not willing to give you the
code behind the objects). It's the same thing in OOP programming... you
just know there are objects out there, get their documentation and use them.
I'd say, you've never used 3rd Party components have you!!!
Comments, method names, Class names all have a good degree of vagueness.
THEY CAN ONLY DESCRIBE SO MUCH.

And Code has it own level of complication that you might as well rewrite
it...
It's like, "Well this method name means this, but I am NOT totally 100%
SURE. But OOP says to trust the naming convention and comments of some
other developer....Ha Ha Ha Ha...."

I guess, this shows what kind of developer you are. You write code that you
can't properly document. With CODE... you'll have to go through all the
other methods involved in the process. With OOP and object models, I know
what it is and all the methods. Please refer to the help files supplied by
many programming languages. Don't they explain it well enough for you?
Then again, I don't expect you to understand it, since you don't see the
code implementation in them.
Even if the developer is your best developer doesn't mean the new developer is going to know what the other developer meant....they don't see through
the same glasses all the time....


Yes... that's why you define standards!!! That way, it's an equal level of
a playing field. Hmmm, then again, you must not have any experience working
with other developers. Have you ever gone through a full software
lifecycle. In most cases, teams from different department don't even talk
code. They only talk about interfaces and let each other work on their own
code.

Now, when you
program in any language, do you have to "know" how the object's methods are
implemented (even in .NET)? I think not... we only need to know what

it does, it's functions (and overloads) and the parameters... Now how is it again in procedural type programs? Oh yeah, you've got to trace through

or
simulate it. Then, if you're lucky, the developer made some documentation in a piece of restaurant napkin somewhere. By the way, if you don't know how to read an Object Model, don't bother. I would now understand why you despise something you don't understand.
WIth cut and paste, the HOUSE is kept clean instead of legacy code.


Except for a few "OOPS!!!" and "OH, NO... LET ME GET BACK TO IT." here

and
there that you forgot to change!!! Hah hah hah, how IRONIC... I have to use the word you despise the most to describe your problem.


Even if I forgot something, I can readily see it and fix it right away as
it's SIMPLE.


That's the problem... the system's in production and you have to apply a
patch? Where's that attitude of yours that "BUGS" are unacceptable?
Easy to remember what was done as it's SIMPLE...
READ, S.I.M.P.L.E.....
ONE MORE TIME, SIMPLE

Still, you've already introduced the bug!!! And it was all traced to CUT
and PASTE, or SEARCH and REPLACE which to my experience is almost 85% of
most programming errors.
With OOP, you don't even know about it, you don't know what you did a few
days ago, and then you have to re-familiarize yourself with the OOP
model...AGAIN.


Unless you're not the original developer of it. At least, with OOP, I only
need to search for that one object. How would you find it in 2-Tier if
you're not the original developer. (Hey, remember, we can also use SEARCH
in OOP. We only need to modify it once though.) With 2-Tier, you have to
look everywhere where the code has been implemented. 1 change vs a massive
"Search" and "Replace." Does this look like it's even worth comparing to
you?
>
> > Uh, Ohhhh....Did I hear on the News again another Windows Update
> ..Critical
> > Update from Microsoft.....
> >
>
> What is it with you and Windows Update..... That's totally Microsoft's > problem.

So Microsoft is EXEMPT from all their mistakes?????? HA HA HA HA HA


No... But you're not either. And have you ever made a "perfect" program...
Let me put it this way, do you see JBOSS issue a critical
Yes, they have... Duh... keep up with the times!!! Haven't you seen them
go several version on major version 3?
update?
> It's also totally OOP!!! The point here is, no matter what architecture you
> use, you're still prone for errors if you're not carefull enough. At least,
> they spend the time to fix it, rather than being in denial and claiming > their program is bug free, like you!!!

JBOSS....weak and poor example....not as many people use it...and it's not
hated as much as MS and thus not even attacked...Heck the JBOSS people

could be the ones doing some of the attacks anyway

Hmmm... there goes your 63,000 bugs. I'd bet, with the other programmers
out there hating you... your program is lucky to even be able to execute
one of it's own threads. So, why don't you be proud of your work and put
out the URL of it. Unless, you don't have one and are just claiming to be a
"WEB" developer.
But MS is an ENTERPRISE application...READ...BIG and COMPLEX...READ...OOP is SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THIS WITH EASE over other methods....

Still is JBOSS, BUG FREE?????? YES or NO?


No... it's not bug free, that, I don't assume it to be. But, there are
always work arounds that you can do when you encounter a problem. Should
that stop me from developing and deploying my apps? Definitely, NO!!!

Stop running from the fact of Windows Update is a clear example of OOP

screw
up. DOn't worry, with the next alert, you will be using it AGAIN!


It's not OOP screw up... It's a program issue... and a human error made despite rigorous testing and architecture. Can you at least show me a URL you've worked on, and I promise you, I'd find at least one bug in your
system. Either by sending your site a virus or a security hack... I'll
show you, nothing's safe to a resourceful hacker. I might not even need

to
that. I'm sure, just by going to your website, I'll find a thing or

two!!!
But then again, you might blame it on me... coz you didn't anticipate the user would not allow cookies or use his mobile device to get in!!!


[keep this in mind]


It's my idea... You don't have to remind me...


> > Oh, but since we trust OOP so much, this NEW Update, IS SUPPOSED TO
NOT
> > affect anything IT shouldn't AFFECT...... BUT of course WE DON'T
KNOW....
> >
>
> It's less riskier than CUT and PASTE, I tell you that...
PROVE THAT IT"S RISKIER.......DO A STUDY and LET'S SEE.....
MY STUDY SAY 63,000 BUGS are through OOP

What is it with you and 63000 bugs from microsoft. Microsoft and other

big
companies like IBM are beyond your comprehension. Let's put your
application to the test!!! If we can't find a bug there, then, you might
convert some of us!!!

YES.....that's a GOOD IDEA......PUT MY APPLICATION TO THE TEST......


SO, WHERE'S THE URL... OR ARE YOU CHICKENED ENOUGH NOT TOO?

> > WE are SO PROUD of OUR OOP MODEL...IT SHOULD ALWAYS WORK....
> >
>
> "IT SHOULD" not that it really would. And 2-Tier, non-OOP works all the > time? NOT!!!!
WELL, let's look at all the MOM and POP's with simple and old .asp shopping
carts. NEXT, let's compare the number of BUGS they have and the
number bugs
that some FULLY OOP solutions has.


Like I said, let's put your application to the test. Let's see how many
bugs we will find... I'm sure we'll find quite a bit... Then, the next
test is, let's see how long you'd take to correct the bugs.

YEA!!!! EVEN BETTER....LET"S see HOW LONG IT TAKES ME...

THAT WOULD BE EVEN A BETTER TEST....


SO, WHERE'S THE URL!!! I ASSURE YOU, THE FIRST THING YOU'LL WORK ON IS
SCALABILITY!!!
LET"S compare and show the NUMBERS.


Yeah, put your product on the line!!! Let's see how you stand up against your claims... If you can't, I suggest you don't reply to this anymore...

YEAH!!! Let's put my app to the test..........
WHERE'S THE APP?

I know I won't be that hard with 65,000 errors for some OOP apps...

AGAIN, WHERE'S YOUR APP?
YES, but I am able to FIX it...with OOP, they try to fix it and break
something else.


Hmmm, i've fixed a lot of bugs and didn't break another... Why do you
compare bigger companies with your itsy bitsy project... Your project is "NOTHING" compared to theirs. Let's compare apples to apples... little
projects like yours and mine.

OH, wait just a second...they have thousands and thousands of the BEST
programmers. They have LOTS of money, resources, QA,,,,,,you name it,

they got it.....


Yet the resources are not enough, or you can't get that through your thick
skull of yours?
SAME or LESS amount of TIME. HIGHER ACCURACY and I also KNOW what was
changed.

WRONG... unless, you've implemented everything... what if you were going
to change someone else's code... YIKES... Oh, I forgot to check that out of
the source control, i didn't get a chance to review it... Excuses, excuses
when you miss something... I'd bet.

2-Tier can have source control just like N-Tier.


Yeah, but if you looked harder at my comment, "YOU FORGOT TO CHECK OUT THAT
FILE" and it caused you an error in the build!!!

SEARCH and REPLACE, not copy and paste
And I QUOTE:
> > Control-C, Control-V 3 TIMES........Opppppsssss repetive stress
> > syndrome.......


Duh, isn't that copy and paste, you @#!%^

WEAK and DEAD argument.......

Search and replace or copy and paste 3 times....Just how MUCH time is that
REALLY?

a minute or 2?


TOO LONG FOR A PROCESS THAT CAN BE MODIFIED IN ONE PLACE!!!
WRONG, FULLY OOP has STEPPED toooo far beyond it's bounds and usefulness


WRONG... OOP is a programmer's nirvana!!!

More like an ADDICTION to drugs....short term gain....long term...65,000
bugs


AND AN APP YOU WOULDN'T PUT YOUR MONEY AT... At least, to the "real"
developers here, bugs happen and we take the time to fix it. But our
methodologies allow us to fix it with hampering production too much!!!


Alta Vista Babel Fish translation

Duh!!! different countries have different needs. But I assure you

they're
using OOP derived technology that made it possible for them to maintain

such
sites.

Really, "different countries have DIFFERENT NEEDS".... What a concept!!!!


Obviously, you haven't developed an internationalized app. Take a
restaurant business like McDonalds. The restaurants outside the US operate
in the same manner as that in the US. They may have different menus,
pricing and currencies... but their business models are still the same
anywhere in the world. They all have the same concept of polling cash
registers (although, the cash registers might be different... and this is
where interfaces can really be helpful just about now), inventory control,
employee clocking, food prep (just to show you some)... and others. Now,
do you need to create a different logic for those? Obviously not, the
settings might be different but still the same rules. Take inventory
control for example... you sold a cheese burger (polled from your POS), you
deplete one patty from the inventory, a bun and a slice of cheese. Do you
deplete two patties in Japan or 0 in India? Duh!!!
How about the difference in a PDA and a notebook computer?

What about it? Still the same rules apply nomatter what interface you use.
Different GUI's, same business model. But yet, your thick skull doesn't let
matters get through your brain.
Having multiple languages is a LOT harder than you think, MR. OOP.

It has a lot to do with things OTHER than programming...It's lot about
understanding the MANY MANY differences in the foreign country as well

that
are NOT language related.......


Of course... some of those would be the business decisions (like what

age should you sell alcohol in fance, compared to the US). But have you
implemented an international "site?" Other than the ones i've said, can

you
name a few more? All talk and no example... (Oh, don't give the "text"
implementation in different languages and the character fonts... coz

that's
a very well fact already.)

Hmmmmmm, have I implemented an international site......let me tell you
something.....have you?


To answer your question fairly, YES, I have... but obviously, you have
not!!! You can't even say anything about it other than challenge me.

I know it's a LOT more than just switching the languages.....

And that's the only thing you know!!! How unfortunate of you...


Jul 19 '05 #37

P: n/a
<<<< Do you deplete two patties in Japan or 0 in India? Duh!!! >>>>

That may be correct for India. I believe they don't eat the cow over there.
:>)

Bob Lehmann
Jul 19 '05 #38

P: n/a
Yeah, I was just trying to see, if Mr. NoSpam will actually see that in his
"Different" requirements so called business rule... :-)
"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:ee**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
<<<< Do you deplete two patties in Japan or 0 in India? Duh!!! >>>>

That may be correct for India. I believe they don't eat the cow over there. :>)

Bob Lehmann

Jul 19 '05 #39

P: n/a
I don't have to... because, you can go to almost any major website, such as
ebay... and you'll see the product created in OOP/N-Tier design. Whereas,
most of us here, have never heard of anyone implement a major website in a
2-Tier design. That's why, I am giving you the challenge. SHOW ME YOUR
2-TIER ARCHITECTURE SITE.
"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
So do YOU, personally or by some association, have a URL to show off your
own OOP superiority?

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ud*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Yeah, I was just trying to see, if Mr. NoSpam will actually see that in

his
"Different" requirements so called business rule... :-)
"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:ee**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
<<<< Do you deplete two patties in Japan or 0 in India? Duh!!! >>>>

That may be correct for India. I believe they don't eat the cow over

there.
:>)

Bob Lehmann



Jul 19 '05 #40

P: n/a
OK, so let me get this right. If I can have a more scalable, reliable,
maintainable and anything else good for that matter....web site then like
say eBay, then my 2-tier architecture is better than n-Tier OOP....????

Not to forget.... so you don't have a web site, personally or that you had a
direct or indirect hand in, do you?
That is, a web site with a public URL that anyone can see...right?

He he he he

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:u3*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I don't have to... because, you can go to almost any major website, such as ebay... and you'll see the product created in OOP/N-Tier design. Whereas, most of us here, have never heard of anyone implement a major website in a
2-Tier design. That's why, I am giving you the challenge. SHOW ME YOUR
2-TIER ARCHITECTURE SITE.
"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
So do YOU, personally or by some association, have a URL to show off your own OOP superiority?

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ud*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Yeah, I was just trying to see, if Mr. NoSpam will actually see that
in his
"Different" requirements so called business rule... :-)
"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:ee**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> <<<< Do you deplete two patties in Japan or 0 in India? Duh!!! >>>>
>
> That may be correct for India. I believe they don't eat the cow over
there.
> :>)
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #41

P: n/a
Hey, that is if you can have a "MORE" scalable, reliable, maintanable
website. You already lose on the "maintanable" part. The reliable piece...
well, I'm not sure how reliable cut and paste technology is. The scalable
piece... that's easy to accomplish using technology without even using any
"software architecture" technique. But, I'm willing to give you the benefit
of the doubt... Once you've release the URL, we'll run WebLoad or any major
stress test tool out there and see how your apps put up!!! We'll simultate
300 concurrent users inside a timeslice of 10 secs!!! That's pretty
forgiving, isn't it? Then gradually increase the load over time.

I do... but, like I said... you can use any public website out there and
it's no longer necessary for you to look at mine. Whereas, I have never
heard of a major site (well, probably except for some that I know of who are
using vignette story server and tcl/tk... Those were the days... that
language was sooo bad!!!) that uses 2-Tier. So, there ya go... I believe,
base on the thread of this topic, it's your methodology that is under attack
by everybody. So, you got to prove it!!!

"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
OK, so let me get this right. If I can have a more scalable, reliable,
maintainable and anything else good for that matter....web site then like
say eBay, then my 2-tier architecture is better than n-Tier OOP....????

Not to forget.... so you don't have a web site, personally or that you had a direct or indirect hand in, do you?
That is, a web site with a public URL that anyone can see...right?

He he he he

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:u3*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I don't have to... because, you can go to almost any major website, such
as
ebay... and you'll see the product created in OOP/N-Tier design.

Whereas,
most of us here, have never heard of anyone implement a major website in a 2-Tier design. That's why, I am giving you the challenge. SHOW ME YOUR
2-TIER ARCHITECTURE SITE.
"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
So do YOU, personally or by some association, have a URL to show off

your own OOP superiority?

"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ud*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Yeah, I was just trying to see, if Mr. NoSpam will actually see that in his
> "Different" requirements so called business rule... :-)
>
>
> "Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
> news:ee**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > <<<< Do you deplete two patties in Japan or 0 in India? Duh!!!

> >
> > That may be correct for India. I believe they don't eat the cow over > there.
> > :>)
> >
> > Bob Lehmann
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #42

P: n/a
Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....

SHOW your URL......

HA ha ha ha....

I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done AND compare
it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin with......

Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is
ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....

I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers, architects with
30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY few even
have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, VERY
VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features....

AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE
immediately change when they actually have to do the work....

HA HA HA HA HA

NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha

You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who actually
DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even have time
to talk or post here.........

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

"Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks n-tier is
the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So it is YOUR burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your twisted reasoning. There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and wouldn't get it anyway.

Bob Lehmann

Jul 19 '05 #43

P: n/a
We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...

Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are other sites
already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier technology already
which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd understand
that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this thread.
Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think, we
should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours
(meaning, our GUI and scripts).

Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you put your
technology to the test first...

"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....

SHOW your URL......

HA ha ha ha....

I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done AND compare
it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin with......
Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is
ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....

I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers, architects with 30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY few even
have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, VERY
VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features....

AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE
immediately change when they actually have to do the work....

HA HA HA HA HA

NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha

You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who actually
DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even have time to talk or post here.........

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

"Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks n-tier is the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So it is

YOUR
burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your twisted

reasoning.
There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and wouldn't

get
it anyway.

Bob Lehmann


Jul 19 '05 #44

P: n/a
There are more of your OOP programmer out there..SO YOU SAY...

So it should be so EASY to show the URL.....

Lots of your GUYS with 30+ years of experience.....what have you got to show
for it?

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Let me REMIND you, that Authors, Gurus and MVP hardly have any web sites of
their OWN and most of them are just plain old HTML....so YOU and them have
got ZIPPO to talk about.......

All TALK!!!!!
You haven't answered the RIDDLE YET, have YOU.......

HA HA HA HA HA
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...

Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are other sites already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier technology already which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd understand that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this thread.
Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think, we
should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours
(meaning, our GUI and scripts).

Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you put your
technology to the test first...

"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....

SHOW your URL......

HA ha ha ha....

I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done AND compare
it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin with......

Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is
ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....

I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers, architects

with
30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY few even have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, VERY VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features....

AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE
immediately change when they actually have to do the work....

HA HA HA HA HA

NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha

You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who actually
DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even have

time
to talk or post here.........

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

"Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks
n-tier is the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So it is

YOUR
burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your twisted

reasoning.
There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and

wouldn't get
it anyway.

Bob Lehmann



Jul 19 '05 #45

P: n/a
Speak for yourself...

We have given you lots of examples that use OOP... We have nothing to prove
to you, the methodology we're using has been used on all major websites out
there (and this time, I can confirm) ,YOU IDIOT!!! Whereas we haven't
really heard of a 2-Tier web url... We cannot give you a URL of our OWN coz
we worked in teams. And OOP/N-Tier allows us to do so unlike your 2-Tier
website that's probably crappy anyway!!! Note that your challenge was an
OOP/N-Tier website was weaker than your so called 2-Tier. SO SHUT YOUR HOLE
unless you can prove something to us!!! Otherwise, you're just words and
had nothing better to do.

AGAIN SINCE I SEE YOU'RE BRAIN DEAD... CHECK OUT ALL THE MAJOR WEBSITES
LIKE MICROSOFT'S AND EBAY'S. THOSE ARE N-TIER/OOP ARCHITECTED WEBSITES...
SHOW ME SOME 2-TIER WEBSITES, IF YOU CAN.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u6**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
There are more of your OOP programmer out there..SO YOU SAY...

So it should be so EASY to show the URL.....

Lots of your GUYS with 30+ years of experience.....what have you got to show for it?

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Let me REMIND you, that Authors, Gurus and MVP hardly have any web sites of their OWN and most of them are just plain old HTML....so YOU and them have
got ZIPPO to talk about.......

All TALK!!!!!
You haven't answered the RIDDLE YET, have YOU.......

HA HA HA HA HA
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...

Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are other

sites
already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier technology

already
which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd

understand
that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this thread.
Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think, we
should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours
(meaning, our GUI and scripts).

Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you put your
technology to the test first...

"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....

SHOW your URL......

HA ha ha ha....

I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done AND compare it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin

with......

Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is
ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....

I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers, architects with
30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY few even have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, VERY VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features....

AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE
immediately change when they actually have to do the work....

HA HA HA HA HA

NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha

You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who actually
DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even
have
time
to talk or post here.........

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

"Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks

n-tier
is
> the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So it

is YOUR
> burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your twisted
reasoning.
> There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and

wouldn't get
> it anyway.
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #46

P: n/a
Are you sure you want to use the eBay URL as your OOP example????

Are you sure you want to use the eBay OOP / n-Tier example as your OOP
Flagship????

I am giving you a chance.......

you need to find a better example than eBay.....

are you sure you don't want to reconsider?

Think carefully now...don't let your arrogance or emotions get a hold of
you.....take a hard look at eBay before making that your OOP n-Tier
flagship.....
WARNING:
I am setting you up....and any Microsoft Guru, employee, MVP, and anyone who
uses OOP....

p.s.
You haven't answered the riddle yet......if you did you might save yourself
some embarassment.


"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Speak for yourself...

We have given you lots of examples that use OOP... We have nothing to prove to you, the methodology we're using has been used on all major websites out there (and this time, I can confirm) ,YOU IDIOT!!! Whereas we haven't
really heard of a 2-Tier web url... We cannot give you a URL of our OWN coz we worked in teams. And OOP/N-Tier allows us to do so unlike your 2-Tier
website that's probably crappy anyway!!! Note that your challenge was an
OOP/N-Tier website was weaker than your so called 2-Tier. SO SHUT YOUR HOLE unless you can prove something to us!!! Otherwise, you're just words and
had nothing better to do.

AGAIN SINCE I SEE YOU'RE BRAIN DEAD... CHECK OUT ALL THE MAJOR WEBSITES
LIKE MICROSOFT'S AND EBAY'S. THOSE ARE N-TIER/OOP ARCHITECTED WEBSITES...
SHOW ME SOME 2-TIER WEBSITES, IF YOU CAN.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u6**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
There are more of your OOP programmer out there..SO YOU SAY...

So it should be so EASY to show the URL.....

Lots of your GUYS with 30+ years of experience.....what have you got to show
for it?

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Let me REMIND you, that Authors, Gurus and MVP hardly have any web sites

of
their OWN and most of them are just plain old HTML....so YOU and them have
got ZIPPO to talk about.......

All TALK!!!!!
You haven't answered the RIDDLE YET, have YOU.......

HA HA HA HA HA
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...

Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are other

sites
already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier technology

already
which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd

understand
that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this

thread. Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think, we should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours
(meaning, our GUI and scripts).

Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you put your technology to the test first...

"nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....
>
> SHOW your URL......
>
> HA ha ha ha....
>
> I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done AND

compare
> it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin
with......
>
> Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is
> ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....
>
> I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers, architects with
> 30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY few

even
> have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that,

VERY
> VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features....
>
> AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE
> immediately change when they actually have to do the work....
>
> HA HA HA HA HA
>
> NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha
>
> You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who actually > DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even have time
> to talk or post here.........
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
> news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks

n-tier
is
> > the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So
it is > YOUR
> > burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your twisted
> reasoning.
> > There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and

wouldn't
> get
> > it anyway.
> >
> > Bob Lehmann
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #47

P: n/a
Hey, why not... but if you can't accept ebay's, go to IBM's website...
that's J2EE technology (meaning N-Tier and OOP!!!)

And who the "F???" cares about your bloody riddle!!! Like I said, you must
be living the "batman/riddler" lifestyle so as you depend on riddles to
defend your ideas. Then again, I think you're insane anyway!!!

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Are you sure you want to use the eBay URL as your OOP example????

Are you sure you want to use the eBay OOP / n-Tier example as your OOP
Flagship????

I am giving you a chance.......

you need to find a better example than eBay.....

are you sure you don't want to reconsider?

Think carefully now...don't let your arrogance or emotions get a hold of
you.....take a hard look at eBay before making that your OOP n-Tier
flagship.....
WARNING:
I am setting you up....and any Microsoft Guru, employee, MVP, and anyone who uses OOP....

p.s.
You haven't answered the riddle yet......if you did you might save yourself some embarassment.


"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Speak for yourself...

We have given you lots of examples that use OOP... We have nothing to

prove
to you, the methodology we're using has been used on all major websites

out
there (and this time, I can confirm) ,YOU IDIOT!!! Whereas we haven't
really heard of a 2-Tier web url... We cannot give you a URL of our OWN

coz
we worked in teams. And OOP/N-Tier allows us to do so unlike your 2-Tier
website that's probably crappy anyway!!! Note that your challenge was an OOP/N-Tier website was weaker than your so called 2-Tier. SO SHUT YOUR

HOLE
unless you can prove something to us!!! Otherwise, you're just words and had nothing better to do.

AGAIN SINCE I SEE YOU'RE BRAIN DEAD... CHECK OUT ALL THE MAJOR WEBSITES
LIKE MICROSOFT'S AND EBAY'S. THOSE ARE N-TIER/OOP ARCHITECTED WEBSITES... SHOW ME SOME 2-TIER WEBSITES, IF YOU CAN.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u6**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
There are more of your OOP programmer out there..SO YOU SAY...

So it should be so EASY to show the URL.....

Lots of your GUYS with 30+ years of experience.....what have you got to
show
for it?

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Let me REMIND you, that Authors, Gurus and MVP hardly have any web
sites of
their OWN and most of them are just plain old HTML....so YOU and them

have got ZIPPO to talk about.......

All TALK!!!!!
You haven't answered the RIDDLE YET, have YOU.......

HA HA HA HA HA
"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...
>
> Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are
other sites
> already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier technology
already
> which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd
understand
> that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this

thread.
> Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think,

we > should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours > (meaning, our GUI and scripts).
>
> Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you put your > technology to the test first...
>
> "nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....
> >
> > SHOW your URL......
> >
> > HA ha ha ha....
> >
> > I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done AND
compare
> > it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin
> with......
> >
> > Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is
> > ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....
> >
> > I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers,

architects
> with
> > 30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY few even
> > have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, VERY
> > VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features....
> >
> > AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE > > immediately change when they actually have to do the work....
> >
> > HA HA HA HA HA
> >
> > NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha
> >
> > You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who actually > > DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even

have
> time
> > to talk or post here.........
> >
> > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
> > news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks
n-tier
> is
> > > the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So

it
is
> > YOUR
> > > burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your twisted
> > reasoning.
> > > There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and
wouldn't
> > get
> > > it anyway.
> > >
> > > Bob Lehmann
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 19 '05 #48

P: n/a
Just wanted to GIVE you a chance

......just remember you have lost every single argument.....OK?
You and someone else said that procedural produced all these bugs, I then I
crushed your silly argument that Windows 2000 had 65,000 bugs....

I said no one uses PDA to buy stuff so you can't just replace the
presentation layer in the 3 tier like OOP nitwits think they can. But then
ALL you could say is use your imagination for new business apps on the
PDA.....

You then said OR agreeded that software is always going to have BUGS.....I
then said USE your IMAGINATION to think of something to eliminate all those
BUGS..hence 2-tier.

Would you like me go back and refresh your memory in more of those OOP that
you lost?
I can accept you using eBay as I can already knock your OOP Flagship right
back in your face with a well published URL....actually severally well
published URL's

So are you SURE, you want to use eBay?

NOTICE: How NO other GURU, MVP, Microsoft Evangelist, Microsoft program
manager, .NET author is willing to help you here........I issued the
challenge MANY times........
Here is the riddle...
Fully OOP, __________, Full Plate of problems.....


"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:Os**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hey, why not... but if you can't accept ebay's, go to IBM's website...
that's J2EE technology (meaning N-Tier and OOP!!!)

And who the "F???" cares about your bloody riddle!!! Like I said, you must be living the "batman/riddler" lifestyle so as you depend on riddles to
defend your ideas. Then again, I think you're insane anyway!!!

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Are you sure you want to use the eBay URL as your OOP example????

Are you sure you want to use the eBay OOP / n-Tier example as your OOP
Flagship????

I am giving you a chance.......

you need to find a better example than eBay.....

are you sure you don't want to reconsider?

Think carefully now...don't let your arrogance or emotions get a hold of
you.....take a hard look at eBay before making that your OOP n-Tier
flagship.....
WARNING:
I am setting you up....and any Microsoft Guru, employee, MVP, and anyone

who
uses OOP....

p.s.
You haven't answered the riddle yet......if you did you might save

yourself
some embarassment.


"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Speak for yourself...

We have given you lots of examples that use OOP... We have nothing to

prove
to you, the methodology we're using has been used on all major websites
out
there (and this time, I can confirm) ,YOU IDIOT!!! Whereas we
haven't really heard of a 2-Tier web url... We cannot give you a URL of our OWN
coz
we worked in teams. And OOP/N-Tier allows us to do so unlike your 2-Tier website that's probably crappy anyway!!! Note that your challenge was an OOP/N-Tier website was weaker than your so called 2-Tier. SO SHUT
YOUR HOLE
unless you can prove something to us!!! Otherwise, you're just words and had nothing better to do.

AGAIN SINCE I SEE YOU'RE BRAIN DEAD... CHECK OUT ALL THE MAJOR
WEBSITES LIKE MICROSOFT'S AND EBAY'S. THOSE ARE N-TIER/OOP ARCHITECTED

WEBSITES... SHOW ME SOME 2-TIER WEBSITES, IF YOU CAN.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u6**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> There are more of your OOP programmer out there..SO YOU SAY...
>
> So it should be so EASY to show the URL.....
>
> Lots of your GUYS with 30+ years of experience.....what have you got to show
> for it?
>
> Hmmmmmmmm.....
>
> Let me REMIND you, that Authors, Gurus and MVP hardly have any web sites of
> their OWN and most of them are just plain old HTML....so YOU and them have
> got ZIPPO to talk about.......
>
> All TALK!!!!!
>
>
> You haven't answered the RIDDLE YET, have YOU.......
>
> HA HA HA HA HA
>
>
> "nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...
> >
> > Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are other > sites
> > already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier
technology > already
> > which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd
> understand
> > that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this
thread.
> > Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think,
we
> > should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours > > (meaning, our GUI and scripts).
> >
> > Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you
put your
> > technology to the test first...
> >
> > "nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....
> > >
> > > SHOW your URL......
> > >
> > > HA ha ha ha....
> > >
> > > I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done
AND > compare
> > > it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin
> > with......
> > >
> > > Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is > > > ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....
> > >
> > > I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers,
architects
> > with
> > > 30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY

few > even
> > > have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, > VERY
> > > VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features.... > > >
> > > AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE > > > immediately change when they actually have to do the work....
> > >
> > > HA HA HA HA HA
> > >
> > > NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha
> > >
> > > You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who

actually
> > > DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even have
> > time
> > > to talk or post here.........
> > >
> > > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
> > > news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks > n-tier
> > is
> > > > the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So it
is
> > > YOUR
> > > > burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your

twisted > > > reasoning.
> > > > There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and > wouldn't
> > > get
> > > > it anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Bob Lehmann
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #49

P: n/a
Let's see, so you can just swap the presentation layer.....NONSENSE.

Surfing the web on my desktop is a LOT different then a PDA that's 25% of
the size of just 14" monitor.

PLUS, Nobody uses a Windows program to connect to a Internet shopping cart
anyway.....

So there.

This silly Java article NEVER took into the fact of the BUSINESS SIDE of
things.......nor did it ever consider that the DIFFERENT presentation layer
on DIFFERENT devices have DIFFERENT USES... THEREFORE DIFFERENT BUSINESS
LOGIC...

All that 3-tier interchangeability HYPE sounds a lot like that XML hype.....

IT"S amazing how stupid and close minded programmers are........and that's
why the companies they work for went bankrupt or their jobs are going to
India......

Look at all the money spent on a 3-tier with ZERO return.....READ
ZERO.....it costs you so much money up front and you never deliver a product
.....just so you can do a 2-second change that NEVER EVER happens in the real
world because it takes you 2-4 weeks to RE-LEARN that object model you
totally forgot.

DUHHHHHH.........................

Where are those MVP's, GURUS, .NET authors, Microsoft program managers when
YOU need them?
.........they are disbelief...that's why.......


"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Not that you'll understand any of this, but here's a very non-MS resource
for exactly what we've been trying to get through that thick skull of
yours....

http://java.sun.com/blueprints/guide..._applications_ 2e/web-tier/web-tier5.html
4.4.6 Separating Business Logic from Presentation
Placing business logic and presentation code in separate software layers is good design practice. The business layer provides only application
functionality, with no reference to presentation. The presentation layer
presents the data and input prompts to the user (or to another system),
delegating application functionality to the business layer.

Separating business logic from presentation has several important benefits:
a.. Minimizes impact of change--Business rules can be changed in their
own layer, with little or no modification to the presentation layer.
Application presentation or workflow can change without affecting code in
the business layer.
b.. Increases maintainability--Most business logic occurs in more than
one use case of a particular application. Business logic copied and pasted
between components expresses the same business rule in two places in the
application. Future changes to the rule require two edits instead of one.
Business logic expressed in a separate component and accessed referentially can be modified in one place in the source code, producing behavior changes everywhere the component is used. Similar benefits are achieved by reusing
presentation logic with server-side includes, custom tags, and stylesheets. c.. Provides client independence and code reuse--Intermingling data
presentation and business logic ties the business logic to a particular type of client. For example, business logic implemented in a scriptlet is not
usable by a servlet or an application client; the code must be reimplemented for the other client types. Business logic that is available referentially
as simple method calls on business objects can be used by multiple client
types.
d.. Separates developer roles--Code that deals with data presentation,
request processing, and business rules all at once is difficult to read,
especially for a developer who may specialize in only one of these areas.
Separating business logic and presentation allows developers to concentrate on their area of expertise.

Bob Lehmann

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ur**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Are you sure you want to use the eBay URL as your OOP example????

Are you sure you want to use the eBay OOP / n-Tier example as your OOP
Flagship????

I am giving you a chance.......

you need to find a better example than eBay.....

are you sure you don't want to reconsider?

Think carefully now...don't let your arrogance or emotions get a hold of
you.....take a hard look at eBay before making that your OOP n-Tier
flagship.....
WARNING:
I am setting you up....and any Microsoft Guru, employee, MVP, and anyone

who
uses OOP....

p.s.
You haven't answered the riddle yet......if you did you might save

yourself
some embarassment.


"nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Speak for yourself...

We have given you lots of examples that use OOP... We have nothing to

prove
to you, the methodology we're using has been used on all major websites
out
there (and this time, I can confirm) ,YOU IDIOT!!! Whereas we
haven't really heard of a 2-Tier web url... We cannot give you a URL of our OWN
coz
we worked in teams. And OOP/N-Tier allows us to do so unlike your 2-Tier website that's probably crappy anyway!!! Note that your challenge was an OOP/N-Tier website was weaker than your so called 2-Tier. SO SHUT
YOUR HOLE
unless you can prove something to us!!! Otherwise, you're just words and had nothing better to do.

AGAIN SINCE I SEE YOU'RE BRAIN DEAD... CHECK OUT ALL THE MAJOR
WEBSITES LIKE MICROSOFT'S AND EBAY'S. THOSE ARE N-TIER/OOP ARCHITECTED

WEBSITES... SHOW ME SOME 2-TIER WEBSITES, IF YOU CAN.

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u6**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> There are more of your OOP programmer out there..SO YOU SAY...
>
> So it should be so EASY to show the URL.....
>
> Lots of your GUYS with 30+ years of experience.....what have you got to show
> for it?
>
> Hmmmmmmmm.....
>
> Let me REMIND you, that Authors, Gurus and MVP hardly have any web sites of
> their OWN and most of them are just plain old HTML....so YOU and them have
> got ZIPPO to talk about.......
>
> All TALK!!!!!
>
>
> You haven't answered the RIDDLE YET, have YOU.......
>
> HA HA HA HA HA
>
>
> "nhoel" <no*****@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > We'll show you our's if you show us yours first...
> >
> > Stop making the challenge, coz, just like you said... There are other > sites
> > already out there... And all of them have OOP and N-Tier
technology > already
> > which you challenged earlier. Now, if you're really smart, you'd
> understand
> > that your methodology is the one in question for everyone in this
thread.
> > Let's see yours... Since you have that "2-Tier" mentality, I think,
we
> > should not reveal any "true" ideas to you for you might just copy ours > > (meaning, our GUI and scripts).
> >
> > Unless you're thickheaded and a real numb-skull, I suggest, you
put your
> > technology to the test first...
> >
> > "nospam" <no****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:#S**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Sounds like a CHALLENGE.....
> > >
> > > SHOW your URL......
> > >
> > > HA ha ha ha....
> > >
> > > I bet if I were show you my web site and show what can be done
AND > compare
> > > it to YOUR website....YOU wouldn't even have a WEB site to begin
> > with......
> > >
> > > Look at this....for me to even believe a OOP nitwit programmer is > > > ridiculous...YOU have NOTHING to show for yourself.....
> > >
> > > I can even look at the MVP's, gurus, .NET authors, speakers,
architects
> > with
> > > 30 years experience, Microsoft program managers....AND VERY VERY

few > even
> > > have a simple web site with just .HTML pages....and even after that, > VERY
> > > VERY few have an intermediate site showing some .NET features.... > > >
> > > AND then those that DO ACTUALLY have WEB SITE...YOU see their TONE > > > immediately change when they actually have to do the work....
> > >
> > > HA HA HA HA HA
> > >
> > > NO URL, NO OOP, NO JOB....ha ha ha ha
> > >
> > > You guys don't really do the work anyway....and those OOP who

actually
> > > DO..they ARE SO BUSY KEEPING THAT OOP MESS working they don't even have
> > time
> > > to talk or post here.........
> > >
> > > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Bob Lehmann" <no****@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
> > > news:u3**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > You're missing the point, numbnuts. Everyone here but you thinks > n-tier
> > is
> > > > the way to go, and we all pretty much think you are an idiot. So it
is
> > > YOUR
> > > > burden to prove YOUR case to bring us on board with your

twisted > > > reasoning.
> > > > There is nothing to prove to you, because you are a dumbass and > wouldn't
> > > get
> > > > it anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Bob Lehmann
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #50

77 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.