Re: By The Dawn's Normal Light

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message news:tfGdnWVSUMKd6efcRVn-jg_at_comcast.com...
>
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote in message
> news:cldp7n$g9m$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > relation. We should pick a new word.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> > That is the search I have been on and I have gathered a lot of material,
> but
> > have no p --> q in logic, only in experience. I also cannot claim that
> the
> > gains in productivity are due exclusively to the data model. That does
> seem
> > to me to be one significant component, however, which is why I
> investigated
> > why the entire profession seems to think that we ought not have embedded
> > lists in our logical data models.
>
> I honestly think that you will find that the data model was a minor
factor.

but I don't ;-)

> > Others attribute the productivity boost to an integrated environment, to
> the
> > ease in getting good performance from the database, to the lack of
strong
> > typing, to the DataBASIC and multivalue query languages, and to the fact
> > that it isn't a DBMS (at least by my def) and doesn't tie the hands of
the
> > developer in the ways a DBMS with strong typing would. These are
> considered
> > bad things by those with a DBMS mindset, but they seem to translate into
> > higher productivity, easier maintainability, and do not seem to
translate
> > into a loss in quality in most shops.
>
> There is one thing that comes through clear as a bell, in the descriptions
> you have given previously. And it isn't in the above list. It's the fact
> that the Pick people in your favorable experiences started with a
thorough
> understanding of the subject matter, and of the real needs of the people
> that would end up being users.

Yes, I think that Bill H has mentioned this several times. I come from the IT side of the world and have always had to learn the business side before any implementation. But the ability for users and developers to communicate easily about the data and processes is very helpful. The logical view of the data to a Pick developer is also logical and intuitive to a human being. You never end up showing some fully normalized (by yesterday's SQL-92 version) data structures nor even talking in those terms.

>
> They then learned enough IT to implement what their understanding told
them
> was the "right thing".

I did it the other way around in each case.

>
> By contrast, most "IT professionals" spend years learning implementation,
a
> few months learning modeling and design, and a few weeks learning the
> subject matter. As a consequence, their analysis is terribly superficial,
> their design is somewhat stronger, and their implementation is truly
> impressive. But that's like the foolish man who built his house on a
> foundation of sand, in the parable. It doesn't matter how well built the
> house is, if the foundation is weak.
>
> The foundation of a successful application is the subject matter.

I'd say that is one of the foundations, but solid, reliable, maintainable, secure, extensible, flexible, fast, ... IT platforms is right up there.

>
> I can't prove it to you, (of course!), but I deeply believe that, at
the
> end of the day, that's the conclusion you'll come to.

Hey, I've learned quite a bit from you and others here -- you make it sound like I have my heals dug in and that is not the case. I'm on a search, but I can't be snowed by high sounding theories. I've weathered the past as you have and figure that my intuition has a lot of experience built into it, so I'm not discounting it either. smiles. --dawn Received on Sat Oct 23 2004 - 18:18:47 CEST