On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 04:11:29 -0700, Avi Bryant avi.bryant@gmail.com wrote:
In just about any professional desktop development tool today, the process of displaying DB data in form or grid format is nigh automatic. I can do it without a line of code, and I can do it even if I've never seen the tool in my life.
And then what? I'm not challenging your statement,
No worries. I keep using Squeak because I love Smalltalk and Squeak has a lot of good uses and a lot more potential. There are certainly support communities wher the response would be "love it or leave it".<s>
I'm just curious: say you use one of these tools to display a grid of DB data without a line of code. What's the process to then have a finished application? Do you have to write some code at some point? How far towards your final goal does that code-less grid take you, and how far do you have to then go with code?
In some cases, pretty damn far. Some people don't want much more than an easy, slap-down, look at their data.
Personally, I've always had a problem with "data-aware" controls, in that they muddle the presentation with the data layer and often make the actual programming you have to do--the "business rules", I think is how it's currently phrased--heavily bound to both. (A lot is being done to improve this, though progress seems slow to me.)
However, it's easy to underestimate how powerful a demonstration it makes. I'm involved in a project which is based on an Access-like tool that really, really shouldn't have been. But the ease of creating and displaying data sold the people I work with. And why wouldn't it? Out of 150 screens, 120 are forms or grids based on tables or sets.
It's been disastrous precisely because the tool--which does this one thing quickly--is stuck in '80s era DOS-style programming.
In my personal experience, the tools that work best are those that either let you go all the way to where you're trying to get to without *ever* writing code (obviously this only works within a restricted domain, but it's great when it does),
I've never gotten very far with that. IBM's VisualAge Smalltalk could do that, and was pretty cool, though.
or those that acknowledge that you're going to have to write code at some point and so focus on making that as easy and productive as possible.
No disagreement.
Whether or not I have to write "a line of code" to achieve the first 5% of my goal tends to be vastly overshadowed by whether I have to write 1000 or 10000 or 100000 lines to accomplish the other 95%. I may have more to show in VB than Squeak after an hour, but if it's a month long project I know which one I'd want to use.
Yeah? You think that the absnce of a solid grid component might not eat up a bunch of that month? If not...well, what are your plans for the rest of July?<s>
It does make for nice demos, though.
Which should not be underestimated.
At any rate, you're certainly right that Squeak is not a "professional desktop development tool". If you're looking for one of those (and, I gather, on the Windows platform), try Dolphin.
Well, we were discussing "general acceptance" and, in my case, of what people come and ask of me. It's not a matter of me "looking for a professional desktop development tool". (Personally, I doubt I'd use any Windows-specific Smalltalk.) I will be looking for a replacement environment/tool soon for the abovementioned big app, and I suspect we'll end up using Java. (I'm not excited at the prospect, but it could be much worse.)
And, you know, it's =fine= if Squeak is never meant to be a "professional desktop development tool". If Squeak has a fundamental "failing" it might be that it tends to excite the desire to make it all things to all people. If I can use it to teach kids and experiment with cool things, that's cool.
It's just not "general acceptance".<s>