FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.
Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » Dynamic form generation
Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Dynamic form generation [message #177821 is a reply to message #177815] Sun, 22 April 2012 14:43 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Jerry Stuckle is currently offline  Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
Senior Member
On 4/22/2012 5:27 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmu1nc$fui$1(at)dont-email(dot)me...
>>
>> On 4/21/2012 5:35 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
> <snip>
>> From your description, any good programmer can tell your code is crap.
>> Only those like yourself can't see crap when it's described.
>
> Your definition of crap code seems to be nothing more than "it doesn't
> follow my rules, therefore it must be crap".
>

My definition of crap code is that "it is bloated, overly complicated
and doesn't follow generally recognized rules". IOW, everything you've
shown your code to be.

>>>
>>
>> Yea, right. And what is the experience of those programmers? PHP
>> programmers as a whole are not known for their intelligence or
>> competence. In fact, just the opposite is true.
>
> So, as this is a newsgroup for PHP programmers you are effectively
> saying that every member of this group is stupid and incompetent? Do you
> know how arrogant that makes you sound?
>

No, you're putting words in my mouth (again). I'm not saying every
member of this group is stupid or incompetent. There are a number of
people here who are quite intelligent and competent, whose opinions I
regard highly.

But there are a few here who are stupid and incompetent. This
especially goes for people who think they can ignore any rules they
don't feel like implementing, and can call a simple order entry/tracking
system an ERP system.

You're just continuing to show your stupidity, Tony. You should have
quit while you were ahead (not that you ever were).

>> But then you're a great example of the latter.
>
> Have you looked in the mirror lately?
>

Ah, a comment I would expect from a three-year-old. About your speed.

> <snip>
>> Horse hockey. You don't have an ERP system. You don't even know what
>> an ERP system is, and have never seen a real one. You've got a simple
>> order entry/tracking system. Any competent programmer can do the same
>> in a short time.
>
> My system qualifies as an ERP system according to the definition in
> wikipedia. The fact that it does not satisfy your personal definition is
> irrelevant.
>

No, it does not. It is a simple order entry/tracking system. But you
can lie about it all you want. It just shows you are dishonest as well
as stupid.

>>
>> What do you think a setter is if it's not a method? And you never have
>> answered how the programmer can change one property without building a
>> whole array. Or get a single property?
>
> The table data already exists in the object as an array, so the
> programmer can examine or change the contents of the array at will. The
> programmer does not have to build the array, it is already there! Why
> can't you understand such a simple concept?
>

Yes, you've already said you don't understand one of the basic
principles of OO programming - encapsulation.

>> Also, the presence of set/get methods does not preclude the parsing of
>> arrays. I have both, for instance.
>>
>>>> If you understood even the very basics of OO programming (one of which
>>>> is encapsulation), you would know why they are needed.
>>>
>>> Getters and setters are NOT required for encapsulation. Encapsulation
>>> means *implementation* hiding, not *information* hiding.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and the properties of the class (i.e. variables) are part of the
>> implementation.
>
> Implementation means code, not data.
>

That's where you don't understand even basic OO. Implementation means
both code and data.

>>>> Less code does not mean less complexity. In fact, just the opposite
>>>> can be true.
>>>
>>> Less code to write means less time to write it, less time to test (as
>>> the pre-written functions have already been tested), and less
>>> maintenance. That has been my experience over 30 years, and nothing you
>>> can say will change my opinion.
>>>
>>
>> That also is not necessarily true. Yes, pre-written functions are
>> great. That's why I use them in my code generator.
>
> My framework generates less code than yours because it uses more
> generalised functions. I don't use the copy paste method that you seem
> to favour.
>

Your framework generates less code because it's only a half-assed
implementation of even basic OO principles (which you have repeatedly
shown you don't understand).

>> But less code can mean MORE complexity. However, you've never worked
>> on anything non-trivial, so you wouldn't understand.
>
> How can less code be more complex?
>

Again, it shows how little you know. Just because there code is smaller
does not mean it's easier to understand. Sometimes it's better to add
code to make it more understandable.

> <snip>
>>> Take a look at the definition of "ERP" at
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning and tell me
>>> I'm wrong. I don't have all the modules listed there, but SME's don't
>>> need all those modules.
>>
>> I suggest you read it. An ERP system HAS all the modules. You can't
>> pick and choose. It's an integrated system.
>
> If you read the definition properly you will see that it is a set of
> integrated modules, and not all users require all modules. My ERP system
> does much more than deal with just sales orders. It does what my users
> want, and I care more for their opinion than I do yours.
>

No, not all users require all modules. However, all ERP systems PROVIDE
all modules.

But once again you show how dishonest your are by claiming your code is
something it isn't.

> <snip>
>>> No I don't. You told me yourself that you regularly cut, paste and
>>> modify code. I don't need to do that as the code is defined once in a
>>> reusable function.
>>
>> Exactly. But that's not duplicated code. It's starting with a code
>> template and modifying it to suit my needs. That way you don't need to
>> start from scratch every time.
>
> If you were really competent you would create a version of that code
> template that could be reused as a single function instead of having to
> be copied and modified multiple times.
>

And you've just proved that once again you have no idea what you're
talking about.

A good example - a table with 25 columns. Most are text/numeric, but
one is a 20MB BLOB.

In one form you want to display all columns in a two column table
(label/value). This one is easy.

In a second case you want to display 10-16 of those columns in a
4-column table; 6 columns will be displayed or not based on values in
other columns. 1 (the BLOB) will be displayed if it is not null.

In the third case, you want to display 5 columns in a 5 column table row
(only). You do not want to retrieve the BLOB column as it is
unnecessary overhead (bloat).

Let's see your template do that.

> <snip>
>>> An application can be described as "complex" by looking at the volume of
>>> business rules which have to be implemented. Using the Radicore
>>> framework I can quickly generate working transactions which already
>>> handle the boring work of moving data between the database and the user
>>> interface, which leaves maximum time to spend on the payload, the
>>> business rules.
>>>
>>
>> You can claim that for your simple database applications. But then you
>> need to do that to satisfy yourself you're working on "complex"
>> applications. Those of us who have worked on truly complex
>> applications know better.
>
> A complex application has complex business rules. A simple application
> has simple business rules. The number of lines of code is irrelevant. If
> I can take an application that uses 3M LOC and achieve the same result
> using half as many LOC would that automatically make my version half as
> complex? I think not.
>

In your universe, yes. Anyone who has worked on truly complex
applications knows better. But people who only do simple database
applications think a few rules make something complex. I hate to burst
your balloon, but it doesn't. You can keep deluding yourself, though.

>>>
>> So? You've claimed you've worked on "database applications for
>> decades". That's long before PHP existed. You opened the door. Now
>> you're backpedaling. Typical.
>
> I am not back pedalling. This newsgroup is for people who write database
> applications in PHP, so comments about writing operating systems or
> compilers are irrelevant.
>

You are back-pedalling. This is not a database newsgroup, nor is it a
newsgroup for people who write database applications. You brought up
databases, not me.

> Before I starting writing database applications with PHP I wrote
> database applications with a variety of other languages. That shows that
> my experience of writing database applications has not been confined to
> the PHP language. Tellme how that is back pedalling?
>

All database applications. Trivial to anyone who's ever worked on truly
complex applications. You brought up an irrelevant subject, and now
you're back-pedaling because I pointed out the fallacy in your argument.

The fact is all you've EVER done is simple database applications. You
have no idea what a complicated application is.

>>> Applications which are NOT web applications and NOT written in PHP are
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Only because all you do are trivial applications in PHP - and you do
>> it poorly, at that.
>>
>>>> Even DOS 1.0 was more complex than anything you've written.
>>>
>>> DOS is not a web application written in PHP, so it's irrelevant.
>>
>> Nope, and neither were the "decades of database applications" you
>> claimed to have written in the very post I'm replying to.
>
> The fact that my experience with other languages meant that I wrote
> database applications for the desktop does not mean that it is totally
> irrelevant when using PHP to write database applications for the web. A
> database application is a database application regardless of whether the
> user interface is the web or the desktop.
>

You're bringing up other languages and databases claiming they're
relevant - yet when I mention other languages or applications you claim
they are irrelevant.

The truth is you have no leg to stand on so you keep trying to change
the subject and/or claim something is irrelevant.

>> Nor is database normalization (which you also claimed to know how to
>> do properly - which I also doubt) in that same post.
>
> I shall treat that remark with the contempt it deserves.
>

Good. You are contemptful.

>> But the incompetent need to have it both ways - ignore the rules when
>> it benefits them but claim it's off topic when the rules don't suit them.
>
> You so are saying that I'm incompetent simply because I refuse to follow
> YOUR rules? Do you know how arrogant that makes you?
>

No, widely recognized rules by experts. But you refuse to follow them.
Do you know how arrogant (and stupid) that makes YOU?

But once again you refuse to discuss the issue and attack back. You're
only showing your stupidity.


>> Which means a mixture of conformant and non-conformant passwords in
>> your database. Anyone knowledgeable of security would cringe at such a
>> setup.
>
> Any competent person would tell you that if the password validation
> rules are changed in such a way as to make all exissting passwords
> non-conformant then you get everybody to change their passwords so that
> all NEW passwords conform to the NEW rules.
>

Which is why you set the rules ahead of time. But that's not what you
claimed earlier, so you have to once-again back-pedal.

>> But it really doesn't matter - it's all bloatware anyway.
>>
>>>
>>
>> Bloatware. If a customer wants a customized password rule, it's one
>> line of code to change. And it doesn't add all that unnecessary
>> complexity (bloatware) to the script.
>
> So you are admitting that in YOUR implementation if you want to change
> the password validation rules then you have to change your code. In MY
> implementation this can be done by changing a value in the database, and
> you have the audacity and arrogance to call that bloat!
>

Sure. It's a one line change to the code. Quick, simple, and
straightforward. But once a system is installed, I've NEVER had a
customer ask for the rules to be changed. That's because we discuss the
pros and cons of different rules up front.

Plus I don't have to stay on the phone trying to talk the customer
through how to implement his new rules.

Your method is nothing but bloat - which is why you're the only one
who's ever implemented such a stupid concept.

>>>> How many customers have actually demanded the need to change the
>>>> rules? In over 30 years of programming for clients, none of mine have.
>>>
>>> None have had to demand such a facility for the simple reason that it is
>>> supplied as standard.
>>>
>>
>> My point exactly. Bloatware. A feature no one wants or cares about.
>
> My customers care for it, and their opinion means more to me than yours.
>

I highly doubt your customers give a damn about it. Maybe they do
because you sold them on how great it is - but then snake oil salesmen
are good at that.

> <snip>
>>> The major customer of my ERP system took a look at various ecommerce
>>> packages before deciding that they weren't good enough, which is why I
>>> was asked to design and build a "proper" system for them.
>>>
>>
>> You don't have an ERP system. You have a simple order entry/tracking
>> system.
>>
>> And maybe they should have hired a competent consultant who could have
>> recommended a proper system for them at a fraction of the cost you
>> charged them for your custom system.
>
> Your personal insults are adding nothing to this newsgroup. Please try
> showing a bit more professionalism and maturity.
>

No personal insult. Just the truth.

You want the king of personal insults, look back through your own posts.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Data injection problems
Next Topic: Do you want to develop PHP for the Web and make money
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Sat Nov 23 00:35:47 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03821 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.3.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software