Re: Data Constraints Vs Application Constraints
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:31:49 GMT
Message-ID: <9bCYd.194563$K7.37183_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:34:34 GMT, FrankHamersley
> <FrankHamersleyZat_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>The most probable reason is: incompetence. >> >>Hmmm ... smells like dogma!
>
> Do you know a more probable reason for a bad done job?
We don't know its a job done badly yet.
>>Be wary here...incompetents don't actually achieve the desired results
>
> No, you are wrong. Incompetents might achieve the results desired by
> them: bad results.
That would still make them incompetent...and given that the business is apparently (somewhat) comfortable with the current situation, it seems to rule out (for the moment) incompetence as abject as you suggest.
>>>>if they code things in the >>>>client, their app will run against many databases. According to you this >>>>worked, so I would ask why change it? Technically it may be "wrong" but >>>>technically they somehow got it working and are a big company, so they must >>>>be doing something right? >>> >>>No, that does not mean that they are doing things right. >> >>Dogma now apparently flying in the face of a fat balance sheet.
>
> Do you mean that if you work for a big company this implies that you
> do things right?
They must be doing something right! Thats how they got to be a big company. Of course this particular project may have nothing to do with the overall success to date. What I often find though is a single persons opinion about what is "right" is not always reliably aligned with what is actually right for a corporation. I know its a bit soulless but sadly that is the way society is trending at the moment.
>>>But the honest and professional behavior is to say the truth. >> >>I restate my case that IT&T is not yet a profession
>
> Of course it is a profession, but it is not engineering.
No its not - where are the professional bodies issuing sanctions for malpractice or unethical behaviour?
>>and the truth rarely is.
>
> That's nonsense, there are many truths we can know.
Read it more carefully - I suspect I can take your "many truths" out of intended context to prove my point. I think Mr Niesche had a bit to say on this concept.
>
>> The next best thing is to consider "if it ain't broke, don't fix >>it" and IMO its a good guideline to consult the "business" to see if its >>broken.
>
> I was not talking about to fix anything and to not be broken does not
> imply a well done job.
Sounds like the impetuosity of youth speaking here. Later on you will find an apparently inelegant working solution is worth untold more than the perfect job that is never delivered.
>>Fair call - always a personal decision without a professional bodies >>documented standards of behaviour to draw on - just remember "believe >>nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see" before making >>potentially irrevocable judgements.
>
> I did not made any judgement, I was talking about probablity taking
> into account my knowledge and experience. BTW Jonathan agreed with me.
Looked like a firm view being expressed as the probablility was > 0.5 and perhaps could be construed as closer to 1.0 than 0.5. I don't know your "knowledge and experience" so how reliable your assessment might be is a moot point.
>>Personally, as a bit of a cynic, I am yet to be convinced (but remain >>open to suggestion) about the benefits of an all encompassing >>referential and cascading schema etc. I can recognise the apparent >>desirability of these aims but remain suspicious of the marketing types >>who glow about this feature or that.
>
> That's not apparent desirability only, this is a well stablished
> scientific principle.
Any how for many years did Bohr's theory of the atom survive? My high school Physics teacher was 3 years into his Phd at Cambridge when that "science" got chucked out. IMO don't put so much (blind) faith in any science. It can be unhealthy...moderation in all things!
Cheers, Frank. Received on Sat Mar 12 2005 - 14:31:49 CET