[AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com

William Hindman wdhindman at bellsouth.net
Thu Jul 31 07:43:06 CDT 2003


...JC goes on vacation and Bruce decides to assume his mantle :))))

...interesting rant btw :)

William Hindman
...It's a proven fact that if you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day for 90
years, you'll live to a ripe old age. :)))

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Bruen" <bbruen at bigpond.com>
To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com


> Well,
>
> Having had the winge, I suppose I'd better propose a desired solution.
>
> IMHO, what is needed is a truly lightweight application runtime that can
> be installed on various desktops providing the basic infrastructure to
> enable a tuple based information set to be displayed in a functional
> format suitable for human user interfaces.  That is, a runtime that
> supports secure, structured, data-only transfer across TCP/IP and which
> locally transforms that data into a dataset that can be displayed or
> printed.  For the sake of the argument, lets call the data transport
> mechanism "XML".  Instead of the runtime containing a heavy load of
> (lets call it) "desktop database" functionality it would only contain
> some sort of coded buiness logic (lets call it p-code), a high speed
> interpreter and a set of <bold red italic 72 point>   B A S I C
> </emphasis> UI components.  However, I note that the UI components
> provided by HTML 3/4 do not cope well with tuple based data, they do
> need to be extended.
>
> Application components (p-code) could be distributed on a download once
> - use many basis.  Including any necessary (so-called) web services.
> The technology exists today to enable secure application loading, data
> transfer and transactional control.  We (developers) need a business
> logic level development environment to enable delivery of business
> benefit software.
>
> What I am talking about, of course, is an Access with the db part
> stripped out and replaced with an easy to use XML based data transfer
> bottom end.  However, as I will shortly expand upon, I don't think
> VB/VBA/VBS/ASP are the fruit of the true vine.
>
> I have recently looked (very briefly) at the ruby language.  If it lives
> up to all its claims, my golly gosh, it's a huge step out of the current
> fight with the technical level application development problems that
> plague us today.  There is not one current manistream development
> language that truly lives up to the promises of OODD.  For example, VB
> doesn't inherit; C++ does not protect or garbage collect properly, Java
> has non-object typeing; etc.  In short, these languages are still
> leaving us with buggy applications that are difficult to support in
> changing business environments.  Developers have to spend too much time
> looking at technical difficulties rather than business logic. Look at
> AccessD mail lately, if I'm not reading it at too much of an angle, the
> vast majority of questions handled by the list are technical - not
> business logic level issues.  Or is it that we, of AccessD, are so adept
> at handling business logic problems that the only problems we have are
> technical.  Somehow I think not.
>
> Hence my short query re hta.  I really thought this was a fantastic step
> forward in net based application taming.  A client stored page that ran
> on a level of the IE intfrastructure that removed the www cr*p (the bits
> unnecessary to a business application) and presented a clean, albeit
> very standard, interface.  And, while I'm on that soapbox, who in their
> right minds needs half the UI noodledust that is floating around web
> based apps today. My <insert deity of choice>!  If I'm looking at a
> couple of hundred, or even a couple of dozen, totally similar
> transactions a day I DO NOT SEE ALL THE CR*P JUST THE DATA.   And this
> applies whether I'm using the data as an operator or an information
> consumer...
>
> I went to the supermarket last week. The checkouts now have decent sized
> customer facing screens that list each scanned item as it gets swiped.
> SUPERB!  I can now see when I'm not being charged the expected price.
> BUT SOME IDIOT OF A MARKETER got SOME EVEN BIGGER IDIOT OF A DEVELOPER
> to use 85% of the screen to show me, randomly, either a pretty picture
> of a landscape, an advertisement for something that I'm not going back
> into the store to buy, or a PICTURE OF THE ITEM THAT HAS JUST BEEN
> SCANNED.  I just cannot comprehend the mentality that decided that I
> need a picture of some (digitally enhanced) carrots rather than the name
> of the item, its unit price, the units scanned and the total price.
> ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE SOME REAL 3-D EXTREMELY CARROT LIKE OBJECTS ON
> THE BENCH IN FRONT OF ME.  I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN WHAT CARROTS LOOK LIKE
> BETWEEN THE GROCERY SECTION AND THE CHECKOUT.  I just cant understand
> how they can come up with these timewasting, moneywasting, ABSOLUTELY
> USELESS pieces of, for want of a better word, functionality.
>
> My bank, after two years of market surveying customers, finally did what
> they were asked and replaced a java based bill payment system that took
> 5 web pages and had every damn bell and whistle that the stupid
> programmer could think of - including animations for God's sake - with a
> simple 2 page (entry and confirmation) app that now lets us pay bills in
> 15 seconds not 2 minutes. The new page has labels, textboxes and combo
> boxes, two buttons and that's all.  It looks 10 times neater, runs 10
> times faster and guess what - it provides 100% of the functionality
> required and 0% of the "functionality" not required.  The ONLY image on
> the page is the bank's logo, which I will excuse.  There are NO
> spinners, tabs, dancing buttons, or technicolour dreamcoat iconic
> (moronic) buttons asking me whether I want to get done over again today.
>
> I don't know how much of the supermarket chain's network bandwidth is
> being used up by the pictorical polution but I'd wager it's a
> significant amount.
>
> When the hypertext paradigm was first expounded, there were only 4 or 5
> or so widgets.  If we expand that set just a bit more to give us some
> easy to use row handling widgets, for example a self-populating
> multicolumn list that knew which row had just been clicked, or (bliss) a
> self-populating treeview............................
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lawrence
> (AccessD)
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 3:40 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Hi Bruce:
>
> You have made some excellent points. I am current working in an Oracle
> product office. The DB is Oracle but the client end is distributed, to
> intranet users through an installed component called jinitiator. This
> component must be first installed on each station before the users can
> access the database interface. The middle-tier is of course Java.
>
> In order for any user to access functionality beyond
> DHTML/XML/CSS/JavaScript etc. other components must be installed at the
> client's station. This is the position that Java now has and .Net
> framework is working towards.
>
> <observation mode on>
> The next versions of Windows will most assuredly have .Net Frame well
> installed... a very tricky position to be in seeing the current
> sensitivity of competing businesses and governments, all of which will
> scream 'blue murder'. MS may be placed in the uncomfortable position of
> delivering and assuring compatibility of a host of competitors products,
> on to it's new desktops. <observation mode off>
>
> A product like PHP/Perl/ColdFusion etc. can provide no more
> functionality to a user than can be delivered through the common Brower
> interface. (Interesting aside; Perl can be installed on virtually any
> computer and can give the functionality of a super 'Free' multi-user,
> multi-tasking DOS on steroids. It's binary and all the bell and whistles
> are about 50MB; small by today's standards. I have it running on my
> Windows98 station and it is great
> fun.)
>
> Jim
> PS I am not a anti-MS person. I personally think .Net is great but I
> have to be pragmatic.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Bruce Bruen
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:33 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> IMHO Probably the biggest PITA about pHP is its major strength - inline
> coding.  There are two views held, one that PHP is a scriptiong language
> that appears in an HTML file and the other that PHP is a script that has
> HTML constants in it.  I think both views are valid.
>
> That said, and to get back to the point, the strength of ASP.net is the
> separation of the code and the HTML/XML/XHTML/etc.  At least within the
> IDE.  At the end of the day the product produced by the script is a
> single instance of an http transmittable document.  Therein lies the
> lack of concern whether PHP is OO or not - if 98% of the output is
> achieveable through non-OO coding and 98% of the output is a single
> instance, and very temporal, document then why impose object mentality
> on it.
>
> Sure and enough, the server side handling of data and particularly data
> updates would benefit from a reusable object language - but there you
> have PEAR, which I am reliably informed is very OO.
>
> Drew sometime commented that he uses dll objects extensively in building
> web based front ends to dbs.  Foine and dandy - the PHP proponents would
> rather use scripted PHP/PEAR components to achieve the same result.
>
> Finally, don't forget PHP produces HTML documents - viewable on browsers
> whether or not the client has PHP.  I have a fear that a large part of
> .net is going to require 5 terrabytes of M$ componentry installed on the
> client side in order to view the built pages.  I was extrememly P**SS*D
> off to find out that the office web controls require so much crap loaded
> on the client side that they may as well just use the application
> locally.
>
> B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Haslett,
> Andrew
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 1:40 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Sure, its implementing a couple of OO concepts, but its still a Hybrid
> language.
>
> It doesn't support the four 'biggies' of pure OO languages like Java and
> the .Net breed and cannot be considered a pure OO language.
>
> That said, a large majority of web coders don't know or will never use
> OO principals in their applications and wiwo viewsll stick to procedural
> programming, so it won't matter!
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Lawrence (AccessD) [mailto:accessd at shaw.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:57 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Andrew:
>
> You are partly right but the current version is Object-Oriented. See the
> article: http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/10007 written by the actual
> developers of PHP.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Haslett,
> Andrew
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:49 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> PHP is not object orientated..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:artful at rogers.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 1:42 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that is an accurate percentage. Why? Because far and
> away the most popular web server on the market is Apache. No one else is
> even close. Add to that the Linux factor (almost all large sites use
> Linux not IIS), the ease of combining php and Linux (and MySQL, for
> data-driven sites), and the cost factor, and it all adds up to a
> formidable combination. Notice that Dreamweaver MX added support for
> php+mySQL in the latest rev. Php is easy to learn and is object
> oriented. There are free on-line courses and stuff available, too.
>
> Not that I have any current clients who use this combination. Most are
> small businesses and are afraid to go Linux, or even to combine Oses.
> But at home I have one Linux-dedicated box and another Win2K Advanced
> Server that houses an instance of both MySQL and SQL 2K, so I can run
> .NET from one workstation and Apache/php/mySQL from another.
>
> A.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lawrence
> (AccessD)
> Sent: July 29, 2003 1:18 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Hi All:
>
> I have seen a recent claim, have no way to validate it but the assertion
> goes as follows: PHP as a server based web language now has almost forty
> percent of the general market...
>
> This claim seems outrageous but that would leave PHP holding the largest
> single market share of that genre of products.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Marcus, Scott
> (GEAE, Contractor)
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for your optimism on .Net. All I ever here are negative things
> about MS products (which I make my living with). It is a good point you
> make about being on the leading edge. I think the same way. I just get
> discouraged cause very few tend to agree with that statement. It seems
> that most think that software development will eventually be all off
> shore. I say that moving off shore totally won't happen (small business
> needs physical presence). JM2C
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcolby at colbyconsulting.com [mailto:jcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:49 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Scott,
>
> >My only doubts about .Net is that I'm not seeing very many job postings
>
> >for
> .Net developers (but allot more than Access development).
>
> I am seeing more and more .net openings, at least more and more "ya need
> the kitchen sink and oh, by the way, ya need .net too" ads.  I get the
> feeling that not many companies really understand it yet - momentum.
> However my feelings are that MS has spent a TON of money on developing
> the concept, and are pushing .net big time.  If they put their muscle
> behind it, it won't be long till it's a "requirement" to get a job and I
> want to be on the leading edge of this one.  PLUS, the .net framework is
> truly impressive in the capability it gives me "out of the box".
>
> >You must have read the same article as me (actually editors comments).
> >I'm
> leaning VB.Net first and then adding C# to my skills. Seems silly to me
> that C# pulls in more money.
>
> Yea, it is silly considering the reality of the new .net environment.
> I'm betting that it won't be long before managers start to listen to M$
> saying that any language is equally capable and stop paying more for C#.
> There are still a very small handful of indirection capabilities that C#
> has that VB doesn't, and if you need them then fine, go there. Otherwise
> VB is probably faster to get something up and running in.
>
> And finally, no, my framework has no equivalents in .net for the simple
> reason that my framework is about making form development in Access
> easier (even more RAD).  Since .net is so very different from Access,
> much of what I do simply doesn't even make sense in .net.  For example,
> I have a function in my framework that keeps a record selector combo
> synced to the form
> (bound) and the form synced to the combo.  It turns out that in .net if
> you set the form (or a data grid) and a combo to the same dataset,
> selecting a record in the combo will just cause the two things to stay
> in sync (be on the same record).  AFAICT, that is because the combo
> actually sets a "current record" property in the dataset object.
>
> Another example, in my framework I want to prevent the user from moving
> into a subform if the main form goes to the new record.  .Net doesn't
> even HAVE subforms.
>
> Things like that.
>
> I am in the process of rewriting something that would "make sense" to
> port - my Sysvars.  Assuming that I leave my error handlers in place,
> that port is really fairly straightforward.  However I don't really have
> much hope of "just porting" my framework.  In the end though, there is
> enough work to be done making .net as "database friendly" as Access that
> I am sure I will have plenty of similar projects.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Marcus, Scott
> (GEAE, Contractor)
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:03 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> John,
>
> You must have read the same article as me (actually editors comments).
> I'm leaning VB.Net first and then adding C# to my skills. Seems silly to
> me that C# pulls in more money. Like you, that is why I'm going to learn
> it also. Have you seen any silly job postings like "C# developer with 5
> years experience..."?
>
> Have you found that your Access framework already has equivalents in
> .Net framework?
>
> I'm not far enough into .Net to have an opinion yet. I can say that if
> it is similar to how Java works, I won't like it. I hear that C# is very
> close to Java.
>
> What I've learned in VB.Net so far seems pretty straight forward.
>
> My only doubts about .Net is that I'm not seeing very many job postings
> for .Net developers (but allot more than Access development).
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcolby at colbyconsulting.com [mailto:jcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Not yet, though I think I will end up there.  I'm thinking that learning
> VB.Net and more importantly the .net framework FIRST will be most useful
> to me.  The framework is massive and being comfortable with that is a
> requirement regardless of the language you then use for your
> programming.
>
> Once that is done I will probably move to C# for the simple reason that
> the polls indicate C# programmers get better money.  I did a controller
> project down in Mexico in a custom 'C' language so it isn't totally
> foreign.
>
> Again though, the whole point of the .Net concept is that the framework
> really provides about 90% of the functionality and it is used EXACTLY
> the same regardless of the language you use.  The language itself is
> really a thin veneer over the top of the framework.  Even things like
> variables are framework objects so that any .net language can literally
> pass their variables back and forth without the silly problems like you
> see with VB and C not treating strings the same way.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ ********************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may
> contain information protected by law from disclosure. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete this email from your system. No warranty is given that this email
> or files, if attached to this email, are free from computer viruses or
> other defects. They are provided on the basis the user assumes all
> responsibility for loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or
> indirectly from their use, whether caused by the negligence of the
> sender or not. _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ ********************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may
> contain information protected by law from disclosure. If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and
> delete this email from your system. No warranty is given that this email
> or files, if attached to this email, are free from computer viruses or
> other defects. They are provided on the basis the user assumes all
> responsibility for loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or
> indirectly from their use, whether caused by the negligence of the
> sender or not. _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list