Re: Expert user vs. Internals Expert

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:3oNcg.183796$7a.33399_at_pd7tw1no...
> David Cressey wrote:
> >...
> > As a consequence, many of the databases designed, by presumed
professionals,
> > over the years have been designed incredibly poorly. And many of these
> > incredibly poor designs have merely convinced some neophytes that all
> > databases basically suck. It's not true. One can get a huge bang for
the
> > buck out of simple and sound design of a database, and frequent re-use
of
> > the same data to solve mulitple problems in the same general space.
> > ...
>
> Being a relative "dinosaur", I think that paragraph is apt. One thing I
> noticed in many shops with many fairly big projects is that the
> "multiple problems" you mention were nearly always more multiple than
> need be. In the cases where I had to deal with those I usually found
> that developers or incompetent biz experts had invented requirements for
> their own convenience or pleasure. Sometimes I managed to get the big
> noises to can them but usually the project apparachiks fought to keep
> them alive.
>
> magoo

I think you and I are using the "term multiple problems" to refer to different things. Let me amend my wording:

"to address multiple sets of requirements within the same general class". instead of "to solve multile problems".

This is different from what you were saying, isn't it?

It's a minor difference. You and I agree on the basics. Received on Wed May 24 2006 - 14:45:35 CEST