Re: database systems and organizational intelligence

"Bill H" <wphaskett_at_THISISMUNGEDatt.net> wrote in message news:%C%tc.8784$pt3.5504_at_attbi_s03...

> Doesn't this imply the intelligence lies within the developer/solution
> provider? If they know the purpose (the what and how) of the task, they
> pick the language that minimizes the distraction from the task; for
language
> is nothing more than a tool.

Very interesting.

I think of the specification of the task as the WHAT, and the implementation as the HOW. I'm not sure where purpose fits in, although it clearly does.

If you're suggesting different languages for different kinds of tasks, I agree.
>
> For instance, let's call the task: writing an A/P check. A theorist would
> certainly try to fit the purpose (the what and how) of issuing an A/P
check
> into the constraints of the language they're working with (C, Java, etc).
> An accountant would probably pick the language that distracts them the
least
> from the task, issuing the A/P check. I can say there are numerous
> languages, theories, database constraints that distract greatly from this
> business related task, in particular, and other business related tasks, in
> general.

It seems to me that "writing an A/P check" is a different task from "developing as system that writes A/P checks".

> One might think about this dilemma. In a world where most computing is
> solving business problems, because it pays to solve them, is it advisable
to
> turn over this task to those who specialize in language or to those who
> specialize in business problems. A clean language that offers little
> distractions will be chosen every time, except by language specialists.
:-)

This is indeed the dilemma. Over time, the amount you have to learn to get something useful done has decreased, while the amount you have to learn to engage in world class competition has increased.

So I'd suggest that both trends are going on simultaneously. Business specialists can take on certain simple tasks that would have been out of their reach decades ago, by just taking some standard office software (Excel, Access, or the like) , and implementing in that. Tasks where either speed or other measure of quality are very important, its more important to let a system specialist use what they know, and learn what they need to from the subject matter.

Incidentally, I would think a "language specialist" would be much too narrow a scpecialty wouldn't you? That's why I substituted "system specialist" for "language specialist". Don't all professionals pick up more languages over time? Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 21:48:20 CEST