Re: Multiple specification of constraints

"ben brugman" <ben_at_niethier.nl> wrote in message news:404dcd89$0$3683$4d4ebb8e_at_read.news.nl.uu.net...
> >
> > Great example, Ben! Users, including programmers, figure out how to get
> > around their "constraints" to solve their problems. I doubt any one of
us
> > would recommend this as a good data solution (adding the department to
the
> > end of the last name), so let's figure out how to encourage better
> solutions
> > instead. Cheers! --dawn
> >
>
> What does define better solutions ?
> We have taken all arguments given here into account, plus
> our own arguments.
> And for the given conditions the best solution was choosen.
>
> No we would not recommend such a solution during the
> development fase either. The solution is probably temporary
> as well.
>
> The point was to demonstrate that the theoretycally best solution
> is not always the best practical solution.
>

Agreed! My point was that we, as a profession, could perhaps figure out how to build systems where work-arounds of this sort are not as common. Such work arounds make sense when it is so complex to change information systems. But if we (again, as a profession) can figure out how our applications are not so rigid and are designed to accomodate the most frequently requested changes, our constituents would be well-served.

 I suspect we are in agreement as I am not contesting the work-around solution. It works and it it low risk and low cost for at least the short term.

Cheers! --dawn Received on Tue Mar 09 2004 - 15:33:31 CET