Re: Desinger 2000 vs Developer 2000

In article <326c4565.34222180_at_nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Jacobs <jmjacobs_at_ix.netcom.com> writes
>franswa_at_superior.net (Fran Moniz III) wrote:
>
>>We are starting a pilot project using oracle workgroup server on a NT
>>server with Win95 clients. This is a very simple manufacturing process
>>that we are going to write from scratch. The Question comes in weather
>>we need Designer 2000 or not. We have looked at both packages when
>>Oracle did a half day seminar on each and decided to diffidently get
>>Developer 2000. Is there any real advantage to having both or can we
>>get away with just Developer 2000?
>
>If you prefer to do a thorough job of analysis, and then leverage a tool that
>transforms that into design, which in turn can be used to generate very
>sophisticated forms, reports (and the database DDL), then you want
>Designer/2000.
>
>Personally, I would never consider using Developer/2000 without Designer/2000.
>

I concur with Jeff.

Using Designer/2000 ensures that you are rigorous in analysing and defining your requirements and designing your database and application modules. My experience is that without a CASE tool like Des2k, people tend to jump into coding far too early. Des2k also gives you all the benefits that arise from having a common shared repository containing definitions of all aspects of your system - this helps during analysis, design, build, test and maintenance.

Obviously, there is a learning curve to climb if you're coming to Des2k afresh, but I think it is absolutely worth it. Like Jeff, I wouldn't use Developer/2000 without Designer/200 on *any* project, no matter how small.

The project I'm currently involved in is delivering releases in a phased manner. The first of these is tiny and consists of just 3 forms and 5 tables, and yes, we used Des2k because it made it easier!  

-- 
Tony Rothwell