FUDforum: comp.lang.php » Dynamic form generation

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » Dynamic form generation

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: Dynamic form generation [message #177843 is a reply to message #177821]

Mon, 23 April 2012 14:23

Tony Marston
Messages: 57
Registered: November 2010

Karma:

Member

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
news:jn15dt$gjl$1(at)dont-email(dot)me...
> On 4/22/2012 5:27 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message news:jmu1nc$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.

You call my code bloated because I have included the option to change the
password validation rules by changing values on a screen whereas you have to
change the code. My method may have taken slightly longer to code, but it
also means that changes are easier to implement.

You call my code overly complicated because it has a pre-written validation
class whereas to have to write code to validate each piece of user input.

You say that my code does not follow "generally recognized rules" for no
other reason that the rules which it *DOES* follow are not the same as
yours. There is no single set of rules that is universally folowed by all
programmers, so I follow the rules which I consider to be the most
appropriate.

>>> 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).

No I'm not. Your exact words were, and I quote: "PHP programmers as a whole
are not known for their intelligence or competence. In fact, just the
opposite is true." The phrase "as a whole" tends to encompass the entire PHP
programming fraternity, not just a select few.

> 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.

Only those who dare not disagree with anything you say. I am the
founder-member of the "I disagree with everything that Jerry Stuckle says"
society, so I don't think I'm in that group. Ask me if I care!

<snip>
>>> 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.

Encapsulation has nothing to do with information hiding, only implementation
hiding. Encapsulation does not require te use of getters and setters.

>>> 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.

No it does not. On the subject of "Encapsulation is not data hiding" take a
look at the following articles:

http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-05-2001/jw-0518-encapsulation.html
http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/

<snip>
>> 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).

My framework is an implementation of MY understanding of the principles of
OOP just as your framework is an implementation of YOUR understanding of the
same principles. When you consider the fact that there is no universal
agreement on what "Object Oriented Programming" actually means then it is
not surprising that two individuals have a totally different understanding.
Yet I am not the one who is saying that *MY* understanding is the only
opinion worth having.

Take a look at these articles to see if you can identify a definition of OOP
with is universally accepted:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DefinitionsForOo
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs
http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/26776
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/oopbad.htm
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/whypr.htm
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/core1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/beyondhw.htm
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentsAgainstOop
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsDead
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientationIsaHoax
http://dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveFailedNarrative.html
http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4216597/Nuts-to-OOP
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ObjectOrientedForDummies

>>> 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.

I agree that several lines of simple code is easier to understand than one
line of complex code, which is why I like to keep my code as simple as
possible. Yet you seem to object that it is "too simple".

>> <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.

I don't provide modules that have not been requested.

I started off by calling it an order processing system, but my first
customer insisted that it was much more than. So if a paying customer says
that it is an ERP system why should I accept your definition?

<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.

The number of columns which are retrieved from the database is not
controlled by the template. By default all columns are retrieved, but the
defaults can be changed whenever needed.

>> <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.

While I agree that an application which does nothing more than move data
between the database and the user interface and does not have any business
rules to process is a simple application, it is naive to say that the
addition of a large number of complex rules does not turn it into a more
complex application.

Using my framework all the simple stuff can be done without writing any
code, but the complicated stuff, the processing of business rules, requires
the programmer to actually add code to the relevant classes. It is the
volume of code which the programmer has to add to the framework-generated
code which adds to its complexity.

Just because you think that a database application cannot possibly be
complicated does not make it so.

>>> 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.

If you bother looking at what the OP wrote he wanted a way to generate an
HTML form from a MySQL table structure. That is why I am talking about
databases in this post.

>> 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.

I shan't bother replying to such a pathetic statement.

>>>> 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.

I am constantly talking about "database applications" because they are
relevant to this topic. Non-database applications, such as operating systems
and compilers are totally 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.

Of you, yes.

>>> 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.

Who says that the rules that you choose to follow were written by experts?
What about different sets of rules written by different sets of 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.

No, I'm showing that I don't agree with you.

>>> 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.

Password validation rules MAY be set when the application is first
installed, but it is also possible that they MAY be changed some time later.
have yiu never heard of customers changing their minds?

>>> But it really doesn't matter - it's all bloatware anyway.

Only in your opinion.

>>> 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.

If you design a simple screen which allows a user to define different
password validation rules then your are a poor designer.

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

It is not boat, it is a valid option. It is also an option that can be
modified without having to change a single line of code.

>>>> > 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.

I don't sell then anything that doesn't work. I ask then what password
validation rules they want rom day 1, then I show then how to set those
rules using the screen provided. They then know how to change the rules
should they ever want to.

<snip>
>> Your personal insults are adding nothing to this newsgroup. Please try
>> showing a bit more professionalism and maturity.
>
> No personal insult. Just the truth.

No, just your version of what you assume the truth to be.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Dynamic form generation By: Charles on Thu, 12 April 2012 03:48
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Thu, 12 April 2012 04:03
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: The Natural Philosoph on Thu, 12 April 2012 04:46
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Michael Vilain on Thu, 12 April 2012 04:52
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Denis McMahon on Thu, 12 April 2012 12:42
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Charles on Fri, 13 April 2012 03:43
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Michael Vilain on Fri, 13 April 2012 04:55
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Denis McMahon on Fri, 13 April 2012 13:19
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Fri, 13 April 2012 08:59
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Denis McMahon on Fri, 13 April 2012 13:22
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Tue, 17 April 2012 12:49
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Tue, 17 April 2012 15:36
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Wed, 18 April 2012 08:33
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Wed, 18 April 2012 11:59
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Thu, 19 April 2012 08:56
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Thu, 19 April 2012 12:29
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Fri, 20 April 2012 08:27
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Fri, 20 April 2012 11:47
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Sat, 21 April 2012 11:22
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 April 2012 14:19
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Sun, 22 April 2012 10:45
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 April 2012 14:09
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Tue, 24 April 2012 17:21
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Tue, 24 April 2012 18:56
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Wed, 25 April 2012 08:23
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Tue, 24 April 2012 20:20
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Wed, 25 April 2012 09:04
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Wed, 25 April 2012 12:29
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Thu, 26 April 2012 11:45
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Sun, 22 April 2012 17:21
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Mon, 23 April 2012 12:50
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Tue, 24 April 2012 09:10
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Tue, 24 April 2012 16:11
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Tue, 24 April 2012 16:54
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Tue, 24 April 2012 17:55
		[OT] Was: Dynamic form generation By: Erwin Moller on Wed, 25 April 2012 11:22
		Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation By: The Natural Philosoph on Wed, 25 April 2012 11:46
		Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Thu, 26 April 2012 11:51
		Re: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation By: Erwin Moller on Fri, 27 April 2012 08:26
		[OT] Yes-or-no questions (was: [OT] Was: Dynamic form generation) By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Sat, 28 April 2012 05:56
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Peter H. Coffin on Sat, 14 April 2012 13:53
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Sun, 15 April 2012 07:33
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 15 April 2012 12:51
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Mon, 16 April 2012 08:31
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 16 April 2012 12:33
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Mon, 16 April 2012 14:11
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 16 April 2012 15:18
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Tue, 17 April 2012 08:18
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Tue, 17 April 2012 10:07
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Wed, 18 April 2012 08:10
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Wed, 18 April 2012 12:09
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Thu, 19 April 2012 08:27
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Thu, 19 April 2012 12:41
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Fri, 20 April 2012 09:10
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Fri, 20 April 2012 12:09
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Sat, 21 April 2012 09:35
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 21 April 2012 10:21
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Sun, 22 April 2012 09:27
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Sun, 22 April 2012 14:43
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Mon, 23 April 2012 14:23
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 April 2012 16:24
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Thu, 26 April 2012 16:29
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: The Natural Philosoph on Mon, 23 April 2012 19:37
		What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Tony Marston on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:10
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Paul Herber on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:22
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: M. Strobel on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:27
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:33
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Tony Marston on Mon, 23 April 2012 14:26
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 April 2012 16:25
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Luuk on Mon, 23 April 2012 17:45
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: The Natural Philosoph on Mon, 23 April 2012 19:35
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Tue, 24 April 2012 17:45
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Tony Marston on Sat, 28 April 2012 07:48
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: The Natural Philosoph on Sat, 28 April 2012 08:23
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Jerry Stuckle on Sat, 28 April 2012 12:37
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Sat, 28 April 2012 12:46
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: The Natural Philosoph on Mon, 23 April 2012 19:31
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Ross McKay on Tue, 24 April 2012 02:32
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Tim Streater on Tue, 24 April 2012 18:32
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: Ross McKay on Wed, 25 April 2012 09:02
		Re: What Jerry Stuckle thinks of PHP programmers By: The Natural Philosoph on Wed, 25 April 2012 11:20
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Sun, 22 April 2012 21:59
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:05
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:35
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Thomas 'PointedEars' on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:41
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: The Natural Philosoph on Mon, 23 April 2012 19:39
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Mon, 23 April 2012 13:47
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Wed, 25 April 2012 07:52
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jerry Stuckle on Wed, 25 April 2012 12:34
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Fri, 27 April 2012 08:52
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Fri, 27 April 2012 13:16
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Tony Marston on Thu, 12 April 2012 09:52
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Erwin Moller on Fri, 13 April 2012 09:39
		Re: Dynamic form generation By: Jonathan Stein on Fri, 13 April 2012 13:27

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) ] [

]

Current Time: Fri Nov 22 19:38:58 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04510 seconds