Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms

> this is true of "foundation" but not necessary of "database." In many
> cases, I favor developing a UI to the 80% mark prior to designing the
> database if circumstances permit. If the database already exists for
> much of an application, then work with that and hold off the changes
> until you have your UI.

This sounds like the "Just start coding!" syndrome that afflicts junior programmers everywhere. It usually results in increased development costs, missed deadlines, and poor quality code--meaning increased maintenance costs.

"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1140740570.496944.319540_at_v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Frank Hamersley wrote:
>
>> dawn wrote:
>> > Brian Selzer wrote:
>> >
>> >>I think you're missing the point. A database is a knowledge
>> >>repository, not
>> >>an application.
>> >
>> > It is a portion of one or more software applications, right?
>> >
>> >>It is the foundation upon which applications are built.
>> >
>> > I don't see it that way. I see it as a software component. One could
>> > also tip things another direction and say "The UI is the foundation of
>> > any software application" or "The processing of data is foundational to
>> > any software application." I see these all as components to the
>> > greater whole. The design and architecture of software are
>> > foundational.
>>
>> Dawn, yet again your heart rules your head.
>
> I heard you mutter "just like a girl" as you wrote that ;-)
>
>> You are so averse to acceding any stature at all to the database (and
>> the RM by association)
>
> That is not the case. I love databases. I love to prepare data models
> (even if I prefer not to use the RM for such). I see the database as a
> critical component in software. I do not consider it lower than a UI
> or any other component. I consider it equal in importance to the other
> components of any given solution/software.
>
>> that you muddle all these concepts and try to
>> insist that they can be tipped upside down to make them comparable.
>>
>> I suspect the root cause of this is due to an undue association with the
>> word "foundation".
>>
>> Given its pivotal status
>
> The antecendent of "its" is "foundation" or "database"?
>
>> and early delivery in acts of construction
>
> this is true of "foundation" but not necessary of "database." In many
> cases, I favor developing a UI to the 80% mark prior to designing the
> database if circumstances permit. If the database already exists for
> much of an application, then work with that and hold off the changes
> until you have your UI.
>
>> you
>> seem to think it might be considered more important than the other parts
>> in particular your beloved 2VL/MV coding space, and thus must be
>> resisted by true believers at every turn.
>
> I am not tracking with you on this. What is being resisted?
>
>> This is not so, or needed
>> respectively. Foundations are not _more_ important, just important.
>
> Sure, they are foundational.
>
>> Going on with the building metaphor, what you fail to consider is that
>> you don't live in the foundations - you live in the house - which has
>> foundations, walls and roof - each with their own role to play, each
>> dependent on the other, any of which if poorly constructed make the
>> house unlivable.
>
> I'm sorry that the metaphor of the database as a foundation doesn't
> resonate with me. I can see that some have such a perspective and I
> can roll with that metaphor and see if it is useful, but I can equally
> see other aspects of a software product as foundational, a UI being one
> possible option and the run-time engines for the software being
> another.
>
>> So relax, let the builder put steel in the footings and timber in the
>> roof trusses, and move in (sic), rather than repeatedly insisting you
>> could, if you so chose, put the steel in the roof and timber in the
>> footings and still get a viable outcome.
>
> You have answered my question with this. By foundational, you are
> suggesting it is needed before putting on the roof. I will restate,
> then, that the database is not foundational. We can build software
> with it as walls or other aspects that are completed when the whole is
> completed. I know you can build software so that the database is used
> as a foundation, but unlike the foundations of a house where they
> really are the foundation, this is a matter of choice in any given
> project.
>
> I suspect I'm still sounding clueless, right? --dawn
>
Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 03:11:03 CET