Re: lack of quality of Oracle Tools

Yeah I'm sure it's not as bad (as building IBM mainframe apps). There are worse things than doing Oracle Forms .... AS1100 and COBOL are two that spring to mind.

It's not the concept of Forms / Pro*C I'm knocking here - if these things worked the way they should they'd be great but they don't. They are buggy as hell (thus the subject "Re: lack of quality of Oracle Tools").

I've been a developer for many years (and a C/C++ / Oracle programmer for some time now) - and while I'm personally fairly new to Forms some of our team are old hands. The bugs we are hitting are real bugs (and not due to some misunderstanding of the product). Some of these are now on the Oracle priority one fix list.

I just want Oracle to spend the time and money to test this stuff properly. It's not right that we the users do their beta testing for them !

Scott Quinn
scott_at_pacifictech.com.au

Steve Cosner <stevec_at_zimmer.csufresno.edu> wrote in article <7mniu3$gc0$1_at_nntp.csufresno.edu>...
> Sheesh! All this complaining about tools. I have developed software
> for several decades, and using Oracle is not nearly as difficult as
> trying to build a dynamic and smooth-running application on an IBM
> mainframe.
>
> I now have years of experience with Oracle, primarily with Developer,
> and the tools we have created for our users are really appreciated. I
> don't know what workarounds y'all are talking about -- I've got
> several, too, but overall, the Oracle tools I've used get the job
> done.
>
> What I HAVE learned over the years is that any new tool takes a long
> time to learn, and in the initial stages, everyone (including me)
> tends to complain about everything. Developing good software is
> pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum from instant
> gratification. Once you get up to speed with a new tool, you get to
> appreciate what it does for you, and all that "attitude" disappears.
>
> Steve Cosner
> http://members.aol.com/stevec5088
>
> In article <7mmlei$7cv$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>, <owais_anjum_at_my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <otvj3.76$8G5.4799_at_nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> > "Scott Quinn" <scott_at_pacifictech.com.au> wrote:
> >> I've had some problems with Objects for OLE in the past but nothing we
> >> couldn't work around and I find the database itself great (and still
> >better
> >> than SQL Server) !
> >>
> >> On the subject of Disaster 2000 (Forms) and Pukegrammer 2000
> >(Prozac*C)
> >> however, I can't think of a single nice thing to say.
> >>
> >> These tools have so many (severe) bugs that they are practically
> >unusable.
> >> The bugs are so easy to find that there is simply no way that these
> >products
> >> could have been tested before release.
> >>
> >> As a contractor I've had so many occasions to call Oracle tools
> >support
> >> about problems with these packages that I know the staff there by
> >name. I
> >> feel sorry for these guys (who do their best to do a good job) because
> >their
> >> developers are giving them products of such poor quality to support.
> >>
> >> Scott Quinn
> >> scott_at_pacifictech.com.au
> >>
> >>
> >I had been a great advocate of Oraccle.....for as long as I was using
> >Oracle database server. The past three months were agoniizing enough to
> >think exactly otherwise for Oracle. I still think that the guys have
> >done a wonderful job with Oracle server....but its a miserable and
> >distressing situations on the other tools that they are providing.
> >
> >There were three of them that bit me so badly...and I list them with a
> >decreasing order of sting that they contained
> >
> >Oracle AppBuilder for Java
> >Designer 2000
> >Developer 2000
> >
> >Owais
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
Received on Sun Jul 18 1999 - 15:05:46 CEST