That would seem to indicate that...

Post #61,124 by CRConrad 11/5/02 3:02:31 AM Reply	That would seem to indicate that... We spend 99% of our time on the applications and the rest on improving the tools we use for application development. Until someone (with control of the purse strings) sees the value of having people actually work on the tools, this isn't about to change. ...that, regardless of where you're at on Bob's line of ever-increasing automation, your movement along that line, towards the point where you've automated yourself out of a job or career, is rather slow. 'Coz the rate of movement oughta be more or less directly proportional to the proportion of time you spend working on the tools, I mean. Note that this is of course disregarding the possibility that you use tools other people make, which they spend pretty much all their time on: For the purposes of a wider discussion, the percentage should be industry-wide, not company-specific. (Which brings us neatly back to your question about how to define "industry"! :-) Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #61,136 by drewk 11/5/02 8:50:25 AM Reply	What I mean We use PHP. I have no problem admitting that the development environment for ASP is much richer than that for PHP. All of our database interaction, for instance, has to be done manually. We've created classes to abstract the nitty-gritty, but we still have to interact with it at a fairly low level. Granted, one of the problems with ASP is that it encourages people to not bother understanding what they're doing. But the promise that you shouldn't need to know that is the goal. So for now instead of having to type five lines of code every time we want to query a database, we only have to type three. Sure, there's better error handling and reporting, and we've got some convenience and debugging features built in. But we all know the DB abstraction class could be improved. But until we have time to re-write every single page that touches the existing class, it's a non-starter. We've discussed versioning, but the code is bloated enough without introducing our own layer of class-version hell. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #61,563 by tablizer 11/7/02 3:16:40 AM 11/7/02 3:21:05 AM Reply	PHP database code? All of our database interaction, for instance, has to be done manually. \r\n \r\nI am not sure what you mean by "manually".\r\n \r\n \r\n So for now instead of having to type five lines of code every time we want to query a database, we only have to type three. \r\n \r\n \r\nIf you use mostly one (standard) connection throughout the app, then most query calls can be reduced to something like:\r\n \r\n \r\nrow = myQueryWrapper("select * from foo")\r\nwhile getNext(row) { // for each row in result set\r\n print("Amount is " & row['amt'])\r\n ....\r\n}\r\n \r\nBoth ASP and PHP can do something like this (although ASP requires a MoveNext IIRC). I am not sure where the bottleneck is in your simplification attempt.\r\n \r\nI take that back. I think you need two different handles minimum for PHP (assuming MySQL API). I'll have to experiment to verify that.\r\n ________________\r\noop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer Nov. 7, 2002, 03:21:05 AM EST Expand All History
Post #61,586 by drewk 11/7/02 9:43:12 AM Reply	What I mean by "manually" We have to specify which DB server, which database and which table for every query. For pages that deal exclusively with one database we can set up the single connection and re-use it. I know you don't like OO,, but that's how we write our PHP. Since we're using OO programming to interface with an RDBMS, there is an "impedance mismatch". If we had an object/relational database, we could define the objects in the DB and query things much more naturally. So instead of $db = new objDB( "db_server_1" );\n$sql = "SELECT \n tbl_user.*,\n tbl_office.addr1 AS office_addr1,\n tbl_office.addr2 AS office_addr2,\n tbl_office.city AS office_city,\n tbl_office.state AS office_state,\n tbl_office.zip AS office_zip,\n tbl_office.phone AS office_phone,\n tbl_office.fax AS office_fax\nFROM\n db_user.tbl_user,\n db_office.tbl_office\nWHERE\n tbl_user.office_id = tbl_office.id\n AND tbl_user.id = '$user_id'";\n$db->query( $sql ) we could use $db = new objDB();\n$db->query( "GET user '$id'") That's what I mean by "manually". === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #61,661 by tablizer 11/7/02 1:15:33 PM Reply	inter-paradigm translation costs Since we're using OO programming to interface with an RDBMS, there is an "impedance mismatch". If we had an object/relational database, we could define the objects in the DB and query things much more naturally. Since you don't have an ORDB nor an OODB, perhaps it would make sense to stop trying. IOW, give up on OO so that you are not constantly battling paradigm translation/adaption issues. I suppose your response is that OO is so useful that the translation costs are still worth it. Is OO really that much more useful in your mind that you are willing to spend such translation/adapting costs to have OO? I won't fuss if you say, "yes", I just want to confirm if this is your reasoning for pursuing it despite an admitted translation tax. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #61,664 by drewk 11/7/02 1:23:38 PM Reply	Yes === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]

Welcome to IWETHEY!