Re: The MySQL/PHP pair

Laconic:

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:-Kidne22XsDoMRPcRVn-2g_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Bill H" <wphaskett_at_THISISMUNGEDatt.net> wrote in message
> news:099jd.362414$MQ5.163359_at_attbi_s52...
>
> > I've noted my experiences are similar to Dawns, in that I work from a
> > business perspective and not from a database perspective. This
> perspective
> > has managed to provide wide-ranging experiences, through the years, with
> > computing.
>
> My reply to you is going to be the same as my reply to Dawn. Your
> experiences do not map well into mine.
>
> I have been involved with several successes, using relational databases,
> over the years. The success was measured by those paying the bills. I
> can't say how far up the chain of command the assessment of success went,
> but I am sure of the reaction of the management that hired me.

I don't believe I've ever suggested that an RDBMS is not an acceptable solution to a business problem. Nor, I believe, have I ever suggested that using one is likely to produce failure at accomplishing the task at hand. So you may very well be mistaking me for someone else.

I have no problem with RDBMS products at all. I don't use them that much but I do use them. I don't develop in them much but I do at times. I spend most of my development time in internet development.

I'm not ever debating this with anyone, why would I. I simply note the difficulties the development structure presents when:

1. databases are managed by one group of people,
2. user interfaces are managed by another group of people, and
3. the end product is put into the hands of a business trying to make a profit.

Next, those who denigrate Dawn for "not getting it" have no clue about her experience. Those comments surely indicate a narrow focus. I would not want to denigrate your experience because they may not map to mine. As a member of NFIB, the local Rotary, the local Chamber of Commerce (in three States), I commiserate constantly with small businesses about the ongoing issues we all face.

I've never said you had to have the same experiences as I; just that there is another perspective from which the narrow focus of RDB theory could use some input.

> If you know what you are doing, you get a lot more bang for the buck. If
> you feel like you are throwing money down a rat hole, then maybe you are.
> But it doesn't prove the case.

All I can say to this is: if I'm throwing money down a rat hole then that's evidence I'm throwing money down a rat hole. You're correct in that I might be able to avoid this; but now without some very good advice and luck.

> > The very concept that I should have one person doing database
management,
> > another on networking, another on user interfaces, and still another
> > defining business rules indicates a large cost structure. But that's
just
> > my perspective because I keep paying for all this.
>
> Whether you need one person full time on each of those specialties depends
> on the scope and scale of what you are attempting. If you are managing a
> very small operation, then you should be able to get by with just one
> generalist, provided
> that person can call on specialists when needed. If you are managing the
> control and communication apparatus for some big company like GE, then
you
> can afford a payroll of three professionals, and more. And you probably
> need 120 hours of work done each week.
>
> BTW, why am I saying three rather than four? Because defining business
> rules isn't an IT function!

I'm not debating your observation that GE needs greater IT resources than ABC office supply. I'm trying to point out a perspective on software development; that business complexity brings on greater development costs differently to different development models. PeopleSoft and Oracle Financials are very expensive. I could go on and on about their databases, hardware topology, support requirements, etc. But their target market has the money to spend.

As Dawn has experienced, and has mentioned in this forum, she's run into full featured enterprise applications that cost a fraction of these two large scale applications. I have had the same experience as she.

> > It's always easy to theorize about why Dawn "doesn't get it". For those
> of
> > us who pay the bills, or don't go on vacation this year because they're
> > throwning cash down an IT "let's try this technology" drain, I find she
> > "gets it" a lot more clearly than some are willing to give her credit
for.
>
> It's not that Dawn doesn't get it about your cost structure. What she
> doesn't get is how some of us succeeded.

I don't interpret her comments like that at all. If I've ever implied that, then I owe a large apology and am quite willing to offer it. Without speaking for anyone else I can only say I've been involved, as I'm know you have, in numerous, successful, large scale enterprise application development projects (some not so good ones too). One would think both of our experiences could be useful in moving forward and exchanging rather interesting thoughts and experiences, rather than using those experiences to beat up on each other. :-)

Since I've been wrong before, I could be this time too.

Bill Received on Wed Nov 10 2004 - 03:18:42 CET