|
I worked on an application like this over 15 years ago. The problem with them is twofold. First, they only really effectively work in a very narrow domain, ones with a well defined business problem. A bigger issue, though, is that users often don't know what they want out of an application. They may know what they want out of their little bit, totally ignoring the other users of a system.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I worked on an application like this over 15 years ago
I know that the idea is not new, but after all of these years, we should think in building one that solve the problems you are talking about. If the user himself does not know what he want, there are a lot of consultant working on let people know what they want. About the narrow domain, I am sure that the technology now is a lot better than 15 years ago. I think the open source community should take a lead in such a thing.
--
Hasan Al-Halabi
Chief Operation Officer "COO"
What's Next! for Business Solutions
Queen Rania Str. Building 313, 4th Floor, Office 409
P.O.Box: 143882
Amman 11814, Jordan
Mob: 962 7 97958819
Tel: 962 6 5334478
hasanhalabi@whats-nxt.com
http://www.whats-nxt.com
|
|
|
|
|
Fly at it. Why don't you start it off? I will watch with interest, precisely because I know how complicated it is.
|
|
|
|
|
We are trying to realize similar idea in one of our products.
We already have developed GUI prototyping tool (called GUI Machine), that allows to creat interactive high-fidelity prototypes and thus to describe GUI and interface logic without coding. Now we working for UML-modeling tool. UML allows to describe the business logic and all aspects of the system. Soon we will integrate these tools (prototyping and UML-modeling) into 1 solution. With it you can creat prototype and UML-model for a complete description of the system (without coding) and our solution will generate code or even a complete application.
I hope, we will be able to realize it.
|
|
|
|
|
seems like something far far away tho.. 
|
|
|
|
|
One has to think outside the box for that.
That means one has to abandon the path we have collectively taken for the 35 years or more. Specifically, abandon the crap called relational DBMS.
Similarly, we must stop following Microsoft like lemmings.
There was a news item in "Insider News" that referred to a blog that said "New is Glue". http://ardalis.com/new-is-glue[^]
Take any Windows program and see how much glue you have in it. Figure out how to remove the glue.
Follow the thought process all the way through.
You will realize that we could have stopped programming around 1995.
modified 28-Apr-12 12:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivic wrote: You will realize that we could have stopped programming around 1995.
..and you'd still be storing all your data in a flat file using VB4 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
|
|
|
|
|
I am NOT a VB programmer.
In fact, I have not programmed under any Windows programming language.
That includes Visual C++, J++ (if you have heard of that), C#, etc., etc., etc.
I spend my time thinking what kind of repetitive tasks programmers do -- and continue to do -- and ask how that can be changed. For me, the light bulb went on in 1987 though the Windows thing came about as a stable system around 1993 and I was attempting to put into practice my thoughts using Turbo Pascal and the Turbo Professional Library to provide me windowing -- granted, character-oriented -- support.
That is why I put a date of 1995.
I said think about how much glue there is in any Windows program -- and I didn't mean only "NEW is Glue". Ok, did that switch on the light bulb?
As to the crap called RDBMS -- which is taught in all the colleges, universities and technical institutes so that we can all become slaves of Oracle/Sybase/SQLServer, what none of you realize is that Oracle on IBM mainframes was implemented as a set of KSDS data sets, which provides unique primary keys and multiple non-unique secondary keys for any record. Anything other than that in a RDBMS is syntactic sugar that gets translated into these fundamentals.
But, thinking is not the forte of the current crop of programmers who run after the latest and greatest scripting language/framework/any other bullcrap peddled by software vendors.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivic wrote: I am NOT a VB programmer.
In fact, I have not programmed under any Windows programming language.
That includes Visual C++, J++ (if you have heard of that), C#, etc., etc., etc.
I can only suppose that you haven't programmed in anything then. Because certainly C++, smalltalk, python, perl, ruby and even Cobol, Fortran and Lisp are "Windows programming language[s]".
Also includes Java, especially so, given that Java was released first on windows. (And with a thread model that was so dependent on windows that it took several years to correctly implement something in Solaris.)
Perhaps you use Snobol or Algol? I don't recall seeing those on windows.
Vivic wrote: As to the crap called RDBMS -- which is taught in all the colleges, universities and technical institutes so that we can all become slaves of Oracle/Sybase/SQLServer, what none of you realize is that Oracle on IBM mainframes was implemented as a set of KSDS data sets, which provides unique primary keys and multiple non-unique secondary keys for any record. Anything other than that in a RDBMS is syntactic sugar that gets translated into these fundamentals.
Yes but everyone knows that that is just a conspiracy by the Illuminati to subjugate the world and that the incredibly vast amount of research on relational databases is all fabricated by super genius aliens that come from Betelgeuse.
|
|
|
|
|
Vivic wrote: I am NOT a VB programmer.
My point was that .NET did not exist in those days. So all your experience in C# and J++ would be irrelevant.
Vivic wrote: That is why I put a date of 1995.
I agree that DOS-like interfaces are enough for most applications. OTOH, having a simple GUI allows not-so-technical users to work with software. No, I do not miss DBase IV (if you have heard of that), nor WP5.1.
..and yes, I think World of Warcraft is awesome. I'd like to see you do that with 1995-technologies
Vivic wrote: As to the crap called RDBMS
Most people I encounter dislike databases. And cascading deletes. And triggers.
Most people dislike what they don't understand. I got the same with ASP.NET, being a complete other beast than the WinForms I'm used to. No, that doesn't make me label it as "crap".
Vivic wrote: But, thinking is not the forte of the current crop of programmers who run after the latest and greatest scripting language/framework/any other bullcrap peddled by software vendors.
Ah, so you're blaming the engineers of said vendors? IIRC, there's a white collar that makes those decisions, and always prioritizing the looks above functionality. Why? Simple; a program has to look up to date, meaning that it needs to have the same colors as the latest version of Windows or Office. Why? Because those colors are the "sexy colors" for that particular year.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
|
|
|
|
|
Vivic wrote: One has to think outside the box for that.
Perhaps by coming up with a new marketing phrase that means nothing?
Vivic wrote: That means one has to abandon the path we have collectively taken for the 35 years or more. Specifically, abandon the crap called relational DBMS.
Joke right? You are supposing that the OP question can be achieved and is not now a reality solely because people use relational databases? I suppose you figure that people that use NoSQL are already 'computer whispers'?
Vivic wrote: There was a news item in "Insider News" that referred to a blog that said "New is Glue". http://ardalis.com/new-is-glue[^]
Take any Windows program and see how much glue you have in it. Figure out how to remove the glue.
Follow the thought process all the way through.
Following through I can only suppose that you are claiming Unix developers using Java are now 'computer whispers'?
Vivic wrote: You will realize that we could have stopped programming around 1995.
I suspect that some people should have stopped programming then.
And since then some others probably shouldn't have started in the first place.
But that is because they have no aptitude for it.
But other than fantasy (not science fiction) novels no one can stop programming now. And based on current research there doesn't seem to be any indications it will be possible even in any mid term future scenario. I wouldn't be surprised that due to complexity issues it will never occur.
|
|
|
|
|
It's seems you are dreaming a day when most of programer go jobless, there might be artificial intelligence in place, but remember nothing can replace humans.....
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everybody!
I'm trying to develop a server, using C#, on which are connected a printer and clients. Whenever a client want to print a document, the server must recognize him to verify some permissions before continuing to printing.
Could anyone tell me when the client click on "print", the server will know about that (will he receive that request as the printer's driver is installed only there) ?
or he have to check the Queue of the printer to know the creator of every process ?
Thank you in advance!
houssem.dellai@ieee.org
|
|
|
|
|
If the user starts the print-action from, say, his browser, then the local computer will display a list of all available printers. If the printer is in the network, and the local computer has the correct drivers, it'll be able to print to there. Permissions are granted over the Active Directory.
Printing is not an action that "raises an event". You could add code that instructs the server to print something on behalf of the user.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have rehosted the workflow designer and I've added a few custom activities along with default activities in it. It is going to be used by users to create and edit control flows. All I want to do is to plug the designer in a predefined architecture which includes a DLL, BLL and presentation layer. What architecture do you suggest for the new case including workflow designer?
Thank you very much in advance. 
|
|
|
|
|
Do you suppose it would be possible to create a mostly proprietary operating system built around the Linux kernel, but with all other components being closed source, commercially developed?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
That is common practice with devices like TV set top boxes. Many use the Linux kernel and some required OS specific programs (often BusyBox) from the open source side and implement the main function in closed source applications.
The source of the kernel and all code based on open source must be published according to their licenses. Each program written from scratch by you must not be published.
A special case is linking open source libraries. These must have a GPL linking exception or are published under a license allowing such linkage like LGPL.
Assuming you want to use the Linux kernel but implement nearly all other code yourself, I think it is possible. But it would be a lot of work and requires checking the licenses of the used open source components.
|
|
|
|
|
I am reading the bridge design pattern from the GoF book, there is a variant defined which the author calls "Sharing implementors" illustrated by handle body / idiom in c++. I did some research to find its implmenetation but i am unable to see Reference counting technique to allow multiple objects with the same value to share a single representation of that value. can any body help me please to learn this?
Hassan Akhtar
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
for our project we use Windsor Castle to do IoC. This means that we also let the IoC container resolve the needed constructor arguments. But for some cases (wrappers, view models, etc.) we also need to pass some ctor arguments which are only known at runtime and from my opinion are needed to create a valid object. For this we use generic factories like:
interface IMyWrapperFactory
{
IMyWrapper CreateWrapper(string key);
}
For this to work I have IoC registered that factory as well as IMyWrapper, where the implementation of IMyWrapper only has one ctor overload with the string argument.
Problem: we also have created an integration test which instantiates all registered components to ensure that everything can be resolved. But this fails for obvious reasons with IMyWrapper, as the string argument is not registered!
I would be very happy if you could tell me what you think about it.
1. Is there a way to let certain components exclusively be instantiated by generic factories so the test could differ and it would not be possible to acquire an instance directly without using the needed string argument?
2. Am I wrong and it is generally bad practice to provide runtime parameters to constructors?
3. If not, would you limit your freedom of doing so just to make the integration test check 100% well?
Best regards
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
you can use MOQ for mocking and IOC for running the test cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
My question is whether there are best practices around color-coding flow-charts and similar diagrams. Do certain colors belong to certain symbols? (such as Yellow for "decisions" while green for "data") If so, what are they? Are there resources online that you know of regarding this?
|
|
|
|
|
There are no standards that I'm aware of. I've never used colors for these, just simple black & white.
Whatever works best for your audience and communicates the message.
Failure is not an option; it's the default selection.
|
|
|
|
|
Just be consistent and use colors that make it easy to read.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Why not to use the traffic signal color coding....it will make much more sense ...at least you need not need to provide legends to the users.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you all for your input.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
