|
I am!
I solve their problems, better, faster and cheaper than any other supplier they have! 
|
|
|
|
|
The only difference between a mad man and a genius is that a genius knows that there is an int.MaxValue limit. 
|
|
|
|
|
I once got to look into the table and variable name structure of BPCS. It, too, was a nightmare, and I can't believe it was a successful commercial venture. It might not have been as bad as the one you looked at. I don't know, because I cussed and closed it as soon as I could!
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: and I can't believe it was a successful commercial venture
I always wonder about that too.
Not because the database is a mess, because users can't care less about that, but because if the database is a mess then it's likely that everything else is a mess too.
Maybe it's just this weird naming that's wrong with it, maybe the naming was generated by some tool, but the developers actually know what they're doing? 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: OVER FORTY-ONE THOUSAND TABLES!
Wilco. Tango. Foxtrot. Echo.
 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
whenever i'm on a project and see a mismatch in the names in the database, the back-end and the front-end i immediately get the urge to kill everyone.
The part before the $ is actually a company name and it turned out this database has the same tables for 23(!) companies, and some other (un?)related tables, giving the database a staggering 41,000+ tables!
that's like creating 150+ tables a day for an entire year. part of those tables are created dynamically?
abandon project
|
|
|
|
|
Martin ISDN wrote: that's like creating 150+ tables a day for an entire year. part of those tables are created dynamically?
I think it's the product of years of development and dynamic table creation, possibly created by a user directly from the product.
But I'm not sure.
Martin ISDN wrote: abandon project
Because I don't like a database I have to access once?
Would be very bad for my finances 
|
|
|
|
|
Be thankful... it could have been access...
or even better, excel tables
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: or even better, excel tables
That's my next project
|
|
|
|
|
What can I say? I was young, and I needed the money...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
The part before the $ is actually a company name and it turned out this database has the same tables for 23(!) companies, and some other (un?)related tables, giving the database a staggering 41,000+ tables!
Probably not intended, but this sounds like a great way to be GPDR compliant - each table can have different access controls so that someone who is allowed to view the data for $COMPANY_A will never be allowed to view the data for $COMPANY_B.
Unintended consequences, and all that...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's probably to keep one company out of the other's data, but giving them separate databases may have been a better option...
Also, I'm not sure if GDPR applies to businesses (it's all B2B)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. 
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Because the unsupervised junior devs thought multi-tenant tables were too much work for the prototype, and when it needed to scale out management balked at paying for one database/customer or a major refactor of the tables to do multi-tenant the sane way so the juniors -still without any meaningful supervision - came up with a WTF pattern.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: a staggering 41,000+ tables
Why go deep, when you can go wide? If each company has its own set of tables dedicated to it, think of how much faster queries are gonna run than if all the data for all companies was combined...
I'm sure that was the line of reasoning...
|
|
|
|
|
Though attributed to Albert Einstein, there is no evidence that he actually said the following...
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
i am disappointed: i signed up for a free trial, only to find out it's only available on Android and IOS. i was so looking forward to telling WoeBot about how I had been recruited into a sinister cult named CodeProject, and how it brainwashed me into being a mindless serf working in its QA answer-factory for tokens that wouldn't buy a Happy Meal.
Would WoeBot understand my aversion to human relationships of any type ? Would it be ok to tell WoeBot that I begin each day staring into a mirror and reciting Nietzsche's mantra: "God is a comedian performing before an audience too frightened to laugh" ?
article about WoeBot: [^]
Quotes from Woebot's site:Quote: Woebot established a bond with users that appears to be non-inferior to the bond created between human therapists and patients.
Participants’ bond with Woebot was established in just 3-5 days—far faster than the bond scores in the comparison studies that were all measured between 2 and 6 weeks.
Participants also gave the bond the same score at 8 weeks, indicating the bond does not erode over tim
[^]
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
And how is this better than ELIZA?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, Weizenbaum's Eliza: I had a lot of fun in 1983 with getting my high-school level students debating whether Eliza, or any future app, could exhibit "intelligence" ... or, be helpful in a way equivalent to a human counsellor/psychiatrist/friend.
The anecdotes (fictions ?) about people reacting to Eliza as if they were engaged with a real person who "cared" include a Russian visiting MIT who started weeping during a session.
Weizenbaum's book "Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation" is a book I'd like to re-read.
The first thing I'd ask WoeBot would be: "who's your daddy ?"
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Dave. How are you doing today Dave? I sense you are unhappy Dave. How can I help you Dave?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a strong suspicion that at least half of the software technology and software designs that come out of large companies are simply an exercise in justifying the existence of an individual's or team's continued employment at said company. In other words, keep busy, even if it means developing things that are worse than useless**
** I specifically mean that - things that add nothing but extra complexity and red tape to software development - a process that should be as streamlined and simple as possible.
Software designs are dissertations. If you cannot defend them they are not worth researching and developing.
I'm all for a standards body requiring a rationale section on any new technology or design before it gets adopted as a standard or best practice.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You mean that we are becoming bureaucrats?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean bureaucracy creeps into software, I guess.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
we just want to keep our jobs and stay in our happy place.
|
|
|
|
|
I forget who said this originally, but specifying the minimum necessary design to perform a task is much more difficult than specifying a more complex design. Perhaps the problem is that we simply don't have enough good designers?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
