| Re: Dynamic form generation [message #177798 is a reply to message #177792] |
Sat, 21 April 2012 14:19   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 4/21/2012 7:22 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmrice$n8h$1(at)dont-email(dot)me...
>>
>> On 4/20/2012 4:27 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmp0gb$d8$1(at)dont-email(dot)me...
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2012 4:56 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>>>> > "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
>>>> > news:jmmabk$67a$1(at)dont-email(dot)me...
>>>> >> On 4/18/2012 4:33 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>>>> >>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmk2lu$hgn$1(at)dont-email(dot)me...
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 4/17/2012 8:49 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> >>>>> Denis McMahon wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:59:52 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> If you used a proper framework ...
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> ... then you'd have all the junk and baggage that comes along
>>>> >>>>>> with
>>>> >>>>>> that
>>>> >>>>>> framework, including any security flaws in the framework.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Not saying that frameworks are inherently bad, but they're not
>>>> >>>>>> automatically the solution either.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> TINSTAAFL. If you want complete flexibility of the application as
>>>> >>>>> the
>>>> >>>>> OP
>>>> >>>>> wants, you have to have an abstraction layer in your application,
>>>> >>>>> i.e. it
>>>> >>>>> has to be built on a framework (some people really should
>>>> >>>>> reflect on
>>>> >>>>> the
>>>> >>>>> term "framework" and its etymology). Abstraction layers come at a
>>>> >>>>> price:
>>>> >>>>> Increased overall complexity of the application and decreased
>>>> >>>>> efficiency for
>>>> >>>>> tasks that do not require as much flexibility.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Yup, and when you use a framework you force the application to
>>>> >>>> match
>>>> >>>> the framework, instead of allowing the application to meet the
>>>> >>>> client's needs.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It may work - but then it may not, also.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The client's needs are met by screens/reports which have the right
>>>> >>> layout and which perform the right functions. My framework does not
>>>> >>> stand in the way of that at all. When user transactions are
>>>> >>> initially
>>>> >>> generated they have default screens and default behaviour, but
>>>> >>> these can
>>>> >>> be customised to whatever level of sophistication you want.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The client's needs are met by the APPLICATION. This is much more
>>>> >> than the
>>>> >> screens and the layouts. But then if all you do are trivial database
>>>> >> applications, then I can see where something like that can help.
>>>> >
>>>> > An application is nothing more than a collection of individual
>>>> > components,
>>>> > where each component does a "unit of work" from the user's point of
>>>> > view. A
>>>> > small application has a small number of components, while a large
>>>> > application has a large number of components.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I can understand how someone like you who does such simple stuff
>>>> things that way. But then you've never worked on something even
>>>> moderately complex.
>>>
>>> Building an entire ERP system with 1700 transactions is much more than
>>> "simple". I work on business applications for corporations, not toy
>>> systems for hobbyists.
>>>
>>
>> Building a *decent* ERP is complex. SAP, for instance, has a good one.
>> They have several hundred programmers working on it constantly.
>
> That is because they have made it more complex than it need be, and they
> are obviously not using a framework which does all the grunt work for them.
>
No, that's because they build an ERP, not an order entry/tracking system
and call it an ERP.
>> What you call an "ERP" is nothing like that.
>
> My definition of ERP is the same as that found in wikipedia at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning.
>
No, you're is nothing like that.
> Note that an ERP system need not contain all of those modules, just two
> or more would be sufficient.
>
Yours doesn't even contain that.
"Mr. Editor, here's my novel for publication. It's only 3 pages long
because my readers have a short attention span. But I'm calling it a
novel anyway".
Calling an order entry/tracking system an ERP doesn't make it an ERP.
>>>> A large application is much more complex than just having "a large
>>>> number of components".
>>>
>>> I disagree. An application which uses 200 database tables is more
>>> complex than one which uses only 2, and the more tables you have the
>>> more maintenance screens you require.
>>>
>>
>> That's because you've never worked on a complex application. Your
>> claim of an ERP is proof of that.
>
> You obviously don't know what features are available in my ERP system.
>
You've told me - it's an order entry/tracking system.
>> All you do is database stuff. There's nothing complex about that.
>
> Correct. There is nothing complex about writing code which moves data
> between the user interface and the database. That is why I developed the
> Radicore framework, to take care of all that simple "plumbing" stuff for
> me. My valuable time is spent on writing the code which deals with the
> business rules, the "payload" as I call it, some of which are more
> complex than others
>
And nothing you've done in your entire life is even moderately complex.
You wouldn't know where to begin.
>>>> >> However, your example of over 200 tables and 350 relationships is a
>>>> >> perfect example of how bloated such code can become.
>>>> >
>>>> > The term "bloat" implies having things which are not used, and I can
>>>> > assure
>>>> > you that every database table has a purpose and is used in one or more
>>>> > transactions. If a database table ever became redundant then I would
>>>> > remove
>>>> > it.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. "Bloat" also refers to applications which are overly large
>>>> for what needs to be done.
>>>
>>> My applications are not overly large. While I have a large number of
>>> small transactions each of which does one thing, this is not "bloat", it
>>> is following the Single Responsibility Principle.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope, they aren't, because your applications are just for database
>> access.
>
> They are not "just" for basic database access, they are for applying
> complex business rules as well. The "basic" functionality is provided by
> the framework while the business rules are provided by the programmer.
>
To you a "complex business rule" is "the customer ordered something so
we need to ship it".
You've have no idea what a complex system is. All you do is database
access.
>> But they sure sound like they're bloated.
>
> The term "bloat" has nothing to do with the number of database tables.
> Provided that the database has been properly normalised (you *DO* know
> what the term "properly normalised" means, don't you?) and every table
> is used somewhere then there is no "bloat" whatsoever.
>
It does when you've got way more than you need. And not if it's
*properly* normalized. However, I highly doubt your 200+ tables are
"properly normalized".
Bloat also covers unnecessary crap like your "password validation".
> In my book the term "bloat" is covered by unnecessary code, and I would
> say that any application which you write which contains 3M LOC has much
> more bloat than anything which I write.
>
Like your password validation routine.
And let's see you write an OS in less than 3M LOC. But then you've
never done anything more than database access anyway, so you have no idea.
>>>> My databases are based on the designs in Len Silverston's Data Model
>>>> > Resource book. So far I have implemented the PARTY, PRODUCT, ORDER,
>>>> > INVENTORY, SHIPMENT, INVOICE, REQUEST and WORK-EFFORT databases. If
>>>> > you
>>>> > bother to read his book you wil see that every table serves a purpose.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that works fine for simple applications. But then you've already
>>>> said that's all you do. You've never worked on anything even
>>>> moderately complex.
>>>
>>> I would like to see *YOU* design and build an ERP application basedon
>>> those databases and then tell me it's simple!
>>>
>>
>> I'd like to see YOU create a REAL ERP application! All you did was
>> build database access to multiple tables. ERP is much more than that.
>
> I know that. It also includes the application of business rules when
> something changes state. An example would be: "when a sales order is
> authorised it must be converted into an invoice, a PDF version of that
> invoice must be created and emailed to the customer. The invoice must
> also be in the language and currency of the customer."
>
What you're describing is an order entry/tracking system, not an ERP.
and multi-language is not at all a big thing to a competent programmer.
I can see why you're making something big out of it, though.
> <snip>
>>>> >>> So you framework generates "a lot" of code, does it? My framework
>>>> >>> generates very small amounts of code which call shared functions or
>>>> >>> which inherit code from abstract classes.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Yup, for instance, it generates all the set and get methods for the
>>>> >> applicable class, as well as database access code
>>>> >> (insert/update/delete
>>>> >> for single rows and single rows and lists of multiple rows for
>>>> >> SELECT).
>>>> >> (Most of the access code is in parent classes).
>>>> >
>>>> > My framework does not bother generating set and get methods as they
>>>> > are
>>>> > inefficient. Data goes in and comes out as an array.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Yea, that's why your code is crap. You obviously know nothing about
>>>> proper OO coding techniques. And that means in order to change one
>>>> item in the object the user has to build an array for the whole thing?
>>>> Bloat... Bloat... Bloat...
>>>
>>> You obviously don't know what "proper OO" actually means. And where did
>>> I say that in order to change one item in the object the user has to
>>> build an array for the whole thing? You are reading things which I did
>>> not write.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I sure do. You said you don't have SET/GET functions. You said you
>> set the values with an array. It's exactly what you said.
>
> But I don't have to insert any code to create that array as it is
> already provided for me in the form of $_GET or $_POST.
>
> When data comes in from the database it appears as a single variable
> which is an array of rows and columns.
>
And you completely miss the question. How do you change a single
property in the object without building the array?
From the number of times you have ducked the question, my only
assumption can be the program can't change a single property in the object.
>>>> > My framework does not generate any database access code as that is
>>>> > already
>>>> > provided by my Data Access Object (DAO). I have one for MySQL, one for
>>>> > PostgreSQL, one for Oracle and another for SQL Server. I can switch
>>>> > from one
>>>> > to another simply by changing a single line in a config file.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you always waste a lot of time retrieving all columns, whether
>>>> they are needed or not. And you update all columns, whether you need
>>>> to or not. Bloatware.
>>>
>>> You are jumping to the wrong conclusion AGAIN! The default is to read
>>> all columns simply because by default all columns are displayed on the
>>> screen. The defaults can be changed.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, so you have to write code to change those defaults. Once again not
>> what you claimed earlier.
>
> Any person with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that if
> the default behaviour is not what you want then you have to write code
> to change those defaults. I have never claimed otherwise. My framework
> generates working transactions based on a lot of default behaviour, and
> in a lot of cases the default behaviour is good enough. When it isn't
> you can change it.
>
That's not what you claimed earlier. Read back at what you said. But
then you're good at back-pedaling. And you're doing it again.
>>>> >> It also generates the code necessary to validate a field. Some stock
>>>> >> fields (like "must be integer") have predefined validation functions.
>>>> >
>>>> > My framework does not generate any code to perform basic field
>>>> > validation as
>>>> > that is performed by a validation class which I wrote years ago.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> More bloat. And tell me how your class handles a rule such as "8-16
>>>> characters, must have both upper and lower case and at least one
>>>> digit".
>>>
>>> Easy peasy. I just set these values in the database:
>>> min_length = 8
>>> max_length = 16
>>> upper_case = 1
>>> lower_case = 1
>>> num_digits = 1
>>>
>>
>> Bloatware. The code has to needlessly query the database, parse the
>> results then apply them to the password, when a regex would do the job
>> simply.
>
> But where do you store the regex? In thin air? Different customers have
> different rules, so each customer can specify the rules that they want
> on their copy of the database. That is not bloat, it is sensible design.
>
Nope, it's in the code. Another customer wants another rule? Change
the regex. And if you want to be anal about it (you're good at that,
also), put it in a function in a separate file.
Your way is plain bloat.
>> Bloat, bloat, bloat.
>>
>>
>>>> Or how about the bloat of calling a class to verify the input is an
>>>> integer when a simple one line statement works. More bloat.
>>>
>>> I have a validation class which is capable of validating every data
>>> type. This means that I do not have to write the line of code which
>>> tests that a piece of input is an integer. Not having to write that line
>>> is not bloat.
>>>
>>
>> Again, bloatware, when a simple function call like intval() will do
>> it. You've added an additional and unnecessary layer of complexity to
>> the application.
>
> You are missing the point AGAIN. In your applications you have to write
> code to call the intval() function. In my applications I don't have to
> write any validation code because I wrote a general purpose validation
> class many years ago, and it deals with that level of validation
> automatically.
>
More bloat. No, the intval() function call is inherent to the set()
function. I have to write nothing. And I don't have the bloat of a
"general validation class".
More bloat.
> Again you are writing code to do something which my framework does
> automatically. And you have the nerve to say that my methods are crap!
>
Nope, my framework automatically handles simple rules based on
datatypes. If I need more complex rules, they are easy to enter.
>>>> >> Others, like passwords where the rules may change, allow the
>>>> >> validation
>>>> >> to be handled by a regex, function call or similar.
>>>> >
>>>> > In my framework any password rues - such as minimum length, the
>>>> > number of
>>>> > uppercase characters, the number of lowercase characters, the
>>>> > number of
>>>> > digits - is controlled from a database record. Each customer can
>>>> > therefore
>>>> > change the rules without me having to change any code.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> More bloat. And unnecessary.
>>>
>>> It is necessary if I want to allow the customer to change the password
>>> validation rules without having to write any code. Not having to write
>>> code is not bloat.
>>>
>>
>> More bloat. And unnecessary. How often does the customer want to
>> change the password rules? In about 35 years of programming for
>> clients, I've never had that happen. And what about the existing
>> passwords which don't match the new rules?
>
> A customer may or may not want to change the rules after the software
> has been installed, but as my software is used by many different
> customers each one may want a different set of rules when it is first
> installed. I can apply whatever rules a customer wants simply by
> changing his copy of the database, and NOT by changing any code.
>
Changing one line of code is not a problem. Your way is pure bloat.
It's interesting that this feature you think is slicker than snot on a
doorknob hasn't been implemented by any other systems I'm aware of -
including mainframe applications. The rest of the world knows bloat
when they see it.
>> Why stop with the password? Why not let the customer change the window
>> layout, for instance? Or add tables and columns to the database?
>
> Now you're going off at a tangent. I should quit while you're behind.
>
Nope, you brought up the subject of allowing the customer to change the
rules. This is just an extension of the same subject. After all, CMS's
allow customer's to change the screen layout to suit them; CMS's don't
force all customers to use the same screen layout.
There are many more systems which allow the user to change the page
layout than there are the password. The rest of the world knows bloat
when they see it.
I guess that's all the bloat you're capable of, though. Even a simple
CMS would be beyond your capabilities.
>> Your code is just bloatware and adds an unnecessary layer of
>> complexity to the code.
>>
>>>> >> It also has the ability to generate forms html to display
>>>> >> (read/write or
>>>> >> read only). And this is all one function. If I need a different
>>>> >> layout
>>>> >> for a different page, it's easy to copy/paste a new function and
>>>> >> redo the
>>>> >> output.
>>>> >
>>>> > Copy/Paste? That produces duplicate code, not sharable code, and even
>>>> > you
>>>> > should know that duplicate code violates the DRY principle.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> You obviously don't understand the DRY principle. Just because you
>>>> copy/paste does not mean it's duplicate code. Once the code has been
>>>> modified to do something else, it is no longer duplicate.
>>>
>>> If you were really clever you wouldn't have to copy/paste/modify, you
>>> would have a reusable module. In my MVC implementation I have a fixed
>>> set of controllers, and each controller is reusable. Can you say the
>>> same in your framework?
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't make any difference. How do you handle displaying the same
>> information two entirely different ways on two different windows? Mine
>> is simple and straightforward. It is also easy to maintain.
>
> So is mine.
>
Yes? So how do you display the same data in different formats then?
>>>> >> It also has a function to populate the object from $_GET or $_POST
>>>> >> values
>>>> >> (with validation).
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't need a whole function to do that when a single line will do:-
>>>> > $result = $object->insertRecord($_POST);
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> So what is insertRecord($_POST) then, if it's not a function? Once
>>>> again you show your ignorance. Don't even know what a function is!
>>>
>>> What I'm saying is that I don't have a function which splits the $_POST
>>> array into its component parts so I can then use a setter on each
>>> component, I simply inject the entire $_POST array in a single operation
>>> without the need to split it down into its component parts.
>>>
>>
>> So you do have a function which does the work. That's not what you
>> said earlier.
>
> Read what I wrote. I do *NOT* have any function which splits the input
> array, be it the $_GET array, the $_POST array, or whatever, into its
> component parts. All database data exists in the database table object
> as an array of rows and columns.
>
I never said you had a function which splits the input array. I know
English is not your first language, but you really should learn to read.
>> I never said I had to split it down into parts, either. I have a
>> member function which handles the input. But I guess that's just too
>> much for you to understand.
>
> I beg to differ. You specifically wrote that you have getters and
> setters for each individual column/field. I do not have code which
> splits an array into its component parts as I can access any component
> part while it is still sitting in the array.
>
That's right. That's an implicit part of OO (encapsulation). I didn't
say it was the ONLY thing I did - I also said that I had functions to
display and handle forms (where do you thing $_GET and $_POST come from,
anyway?).
But unlike you, I can get or set a single property, also, as needed.
Something I do all the time.
>>>> > This means that the same line will work on any object regardless of
>>>> > which
>>>> > class it came from. That is what polymorphism is all about.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that's not at all what polymorphism is about. But you obviously
>>>> don't understand polymorphism, either.
>>>
>>> The definition of polymorphism which I use is "same method, different
>>> implementation". What definition do you use?
>>>
>>
>> You've got a *partial* definition. Polymorphism is only applicable
>> when the two classes have a parent/child hierarchy, and the child
>> class has a method of the same name (and in some languages, the same
>> parameter list) as the parent.
>
> The definition of polymorphism does NOT state that the classes have to
> exist in a parent/child hierarchy, only that they have the same method
> signature. Having said that, it is usually the case that the two classes
> ARE related.
>
Once again you show you have no knowledge of OO. Polymorphism cannot
exist without inheritance - which requires a parent/child hierarchy.
In most languages the method signature must also be the same (in fact I
don't know of any language which doesn't), but that's not a requirement
of polymorphism (unlike the parent/child relationship).
>> When there is no parent/child relationship (as in the case of two
>> different database tables), there is no polymorphism.
>
> Then you obviously haven't used an abstract table class which is
> inherited by every concrete table class. All my concrete table classes
> have instant access to all the methods and properties which are defined
> just once in the abstract class.
>
I've used them much longer than you've even known they existed. When
you have a class derived from the abstract class, there is a
parent/child relationship. But there is no such relationship between
two classes derived from the same one.
>>>> >>>> However, since each class is pretty much independent, I can easily
>>>> >>>> change a class without affecting the rest of the program.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So can I with my framework.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> I don't have it where it will work with multiple tables yet
>>>> >>>> (something
>>>> >>>> I will do one of these days), but it takes a huge amount of the
>>>> >>>> repetitive work off of me.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Removing the need for all this repetitive coding, the "plumbing"
>>>> >>> as I
>>>> >>> call it, is exactly what my framework does.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not if it only generates a tiny bit of code.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are missing the point as usual. My framework need only generate a
>>>> > small
>>>> > amount of code as everything else, especially all the standard
>>>> > plumbing, is
>>>> > included from standard pre-written functions.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm missing nothing. But you've clearly shown just how crappy your
>>>> code is.
>>>
>>> Just because it's different from yours does not make it crap.
>>>
>>
>> It's not because it's different that it's crap. It's crap because
>> you've shown here it's crap.
>
> Only in your tiny mind.
>
So you wish, anyway.
>>>> >>>> And no, I don't try to use it for every project. But where a
>>>> >>>> project
>>>> >>>> is database-intensive, it suits my purposes.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> All my applications are database-intensive, which is why I use a
>>>> >>> framework which is centred around the database.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ah, that explains it, then. Database access is easy (although many
>>>> >> people
>>>> >> can still screw that up). Most of my applications need to do real
>>>> >> work.
>>>> >
>>>> > My framework takes care of all the standard database access, and
>>>> > getting
>>>> > data in and out of the screen, plus basic data validation. As for the
>>>> > "real
>>>> > work" as you call - or the "payload" as I call it - that is done by
>>>> > adding
>>>> > whatever code is necessary in the relevant class to implement each
>>>> > business
>>>> > rule. The point is that when using my framework the programmer has to
>>>> > spend
>>>> > little or no time on the standard plumbing, which leaves him with
>>>> > much more
>>>> > time to spend on the payload.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Yup, you've never done any applications which require real work, as
>>>> you once again have shown.
>>>
>>> Then you obviously have not experienced the complicated things which
>>> need to be done in an ERP application.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously neither have you. What you have is not a real ERP
>> application. I suspect your customer would do as well with an Excel
>> spreadsheet.
>
> It is real enough for my paying customers, and it is THEIR opinion that
> counts, not yours.
>
And it shows just how little you understand ERP systems. Just because
you call it an ERP doesn't mean it is an ERP. But it shows the rest of
the world how ignorant you are.
All you have is a simple order entry/tracking system, not an ERP.
>> And I wonder what your customer would think if he knew you were taking
>> credit for his hard work in building his business.
>
> The comment that my software helped that particular customer in that way
> was actually made by one of the directors of that company.
>
And I wonder what your customer would think if he knew you were taking
credit for his hard work in building his business.
>>>> >> But I'm also not so stupid as to think that my frameworks is good for
>>>> >> everyone. It works for me. But I don't try to foist it off on someone
>>>> >> else without telling them it's my framework. That is just plain
>>>> >> dishonest.
>>>> >
>>>> > I never said that my framework is the perfect solution for everyone.
>>>> > If you
>>>> > a writing a simple website then it's not good, but if you are
>>>> > writing a
>>>> > database application then it's better than most.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, you sure seemed to indicate that when you first started pushing
>>>> this piece of horse hockey.
>>>
>>> That may have been the impression that you got, but you have indicated
>>> time and time again that your mind works in mysterious ways.
>>>
>>
>> Yea, I live in the real world and have real world experience. Unlike
>> you, who seems to live in some alternative universe where you can make
>> up any rules you want and can ignore those you don't like. You can
>> call a simple database application an ERP and take all the credit for
>> your client's hard work.
>
> It is much more than a simple database application which does nothing
> more than move data between the user interface and the database. It
> processes a large number of business rules, and it is the number and
> complexity of these business rules which decides whether an application
> is actually complex or not.
>
In your world, yes. But then all you've ever done are database
applications. You've never worked on anything even moderately complex,
by your own admission.
>>>> > I was never dishonest about the Radicore framework. I never said it
>>>> > was
>>>> > written by someone else. I even include a link to the radicore
>>>> > website in my
>>>> > signature.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> And you never said it was written by you, and that you were nowhere
>>>> near an unbiased user. The fact you are pushing your own product
>>>> without telling people you have a vested interest is dishonest. The
>>>> fact you have a link to it in your sig is immaterial - lots of people
>>>> have links in their sigs to all kinds of things.
>>>>
>>>> But then I can see why you don't want to tell people it's your
>>>> product. I wouldn't want to admit to having created that piece of
>>>> horse hockey, either.
>>>
>>> You're the expert in horse hockey judging by the amount you write in
>>> these posts.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, I know how to program properly. You've obviously never worked in
>> a corporate environment, for instance, where you have multiple
>> programmers and have to learn good programming techniques.
>
> I worked in several software houses for many years, and I dealt with
> many different projects for many different customers. I was also project
> leader on a good number of those projects. I also wrote the framework
> used in one of those software houses as well as setting the development
> standards.
>
Were all of those simple database applications also? I suspect so,
because that's all you've ever done.
But then I can see why you weren't able to keep a job with any of those
software houses.
>>>> > If *your* framework is so good, then why don't you release it as open
>>>> > source
>>>> > so that we call all have a laugh?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> For a lot of reasons. Mainly because I'm not interested in the hassles
>>>> of having to support it for a bunch of people who want all kinds of
>>>> other features. I created it for my projects, and it serves those
>>>> projects well.
>>>
>>> What you really mean is that you are too ashamed to have it reviewed by
>>> your peers, and that you are incapable of writing code which can be used
>>> by others.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. I meant exactly what I said.
>
> Yes, you can't be bothered to release it as it is only useful for your
> own personal toy projects.
>
Nope. I just don't want to have to answer a bunch of anal questions by
the likes of you. I have better things to do with my time.
>> Unlike you, I don't need my ego stroked.
>
> That's not the impression I get from reading your comments in this post.
> You seem to think that YOUR way is the ONLY way, and anybody who dares
> to disagree with you is a stupid moron. I disagree with everything you
> say, and as for being a moron, 99% of the emails which I receive on the
> subject on my work are nothing but complimentary.
>
Nope. I didn't say my way was the only way. I said my way works, does
not contain bloatware and follows recognized OO practices. All you can
claim is yours works.
And knowing how the rest of the world feels about the ability of PHP
programmers, it's not surprising. I've seen some pretty crappy code get
high marks because people don't know any better.
>> But my code is reviewed by others quite often. Most projects I work on
>> are collaborative. But then I work with programmers who know what
>> they're doing, also.
>
> I'd hate to on a team of programmers who all think like you as they
> would all be unproductive and full of silly ideas.
>
We work quite well together and create a lot of GOOD code. Unlike the
crap you put put.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]