Re: tools for PL/SQL development

Mark C. Stock wrote:

> it'd say your students have a problem other than the GUI -- have you set
> proper expectations?

They are almost all industry professionals with 7+ years experience. I get maybe one or two 20 year olds a year. The classes are graduate level, BA or BS degree required unless waived by the instructor, and only 60 seats per year.

Their expectation? To be able to bang out SQL and PL/SQL in any country on any platform and operating system.

> to be fair, i've had students that die in a gui because they don't
> understand windows, ending up with multiple SQL Edit windows open, and it
> got in their way. but i would never want any of those students on a project

Not once have I had that problem. Syntax is boring. I want students that want to learn to think in fourth normal form. ;-)

> however, i've seen good students choke on sql*plus's idiosyncracies and
> bugginess (Input trunctated to 18 characters -- invalid character --;' --
> after simple edit)

Not once have I had that experience. I've had questions about the old "Input truncated" but that's just part of learning. If you aren't comfortable with ORA-##### you aren't learning anything.

> in my experience reasonably intelligent (i know, big assumption) and
> intelligently reasonable (even a rarer breed) developers are much more
> productive with a gui because it presents the information in a clearer, more
> quickly discernable fashion -- which is basically what our goal is in our
> apps, isn't it?

You are limiting yourself to a small subset of the languages on this planet ... I have students from many countries ... and to only a single operating system. What good is all that GUI training when you get a job and your boss shows you to your Ultra 5 workstation?

If a developer can't work in SQL*Plus they are marginal at best. A DBA that can't work in vi ... I'll restrain myself but imagine Sybrand's response.

> example, on my current project, a colleague had previously only used
> SQL*Plus and the rest of the team was using TOAD. when he finally decided to
> try TOAD, his productivity slip up nicely, and his frustration level went
> down, and his code improved as he was able to more quickly identify syntax
> problems and focus on the logic

I have no problem with someone that has SQL*Plus under their belt using a GUI. I do from time-to-time. But take someone that has little or no SQL*Plus experience ... GUI only ... and sit them down in front of a machine with AIX, HP/UX, Solaris, etc. and let me know how they do.

> from you other post
>
> |Want to guess who writes the most error-free code in the shortest
> |amount of time? Want to guess whose executes more quickly and scales
> |better?
>
> Want to guess who designs the best house in the shortest amount of time?
> Want to guess whose buildings are more functional and have higher resale?
> Obviously it's the architects that uses a t-square and a #2 hand-sharpened
> pencil ;-)

The best I can say is "bad analogy."

> stupid architects design stupid buildings with whatever tools they do or
> don't use -- same principle applies to software development

Architects that don't already know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide don't build anything when handed an electronic calculator.

> It's not the tool, it's how you use it. GUIs are not evil, text editors are
> not sacred (and visa-versa).

Didn't say they were you are leaping to conclusions about my point of view. GUIs are fine after you know what you are doing. They are not a substitute or earning your stripes.

> i've used my quota of exclamation points -- cheers!

Good thing. One more and I was going to need to pour another scotch.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)