Re: 1995 Developers Competition Update - 42 Teams,Japan,Languages Used

In Article<40k1f4$7rc@natasha.rmii.com>, <cjames@cec-services.com> write: > ... > | Total cash prizes of $10,000 will > | be awarded the top 3 teams. Gold medals will be awarded the best MultiMedia, > | Object Oriented, Rapid Application Development and Client Server application. > > The specifications for the 1994 competition in fact prohibit _any_ > object-oriented approach. ... > ... > I believe the 42 teams are wasting their time on the 1995 competition. > > ... > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > Colin James III, Principal Scientist cjames@cec-services.com > CEC Services ... SOCK IT TO 'EM SOCK IT TO 'EM SOCK IT TO 'EM (here come the flame throwers) In Article<dbmooreDDB02K.62G@netcom.com>, <dbmoore@netcom.com> write: > ... > You make many interesting points ... Nonetheless, it is not unusual for > programmers to have to work from a specification developed by others on a > database schema already in existence or built by an analyst (possibly one not > as educated in object orientation as the programmer would like ;-) prior to > the beginning of coding. ... UNFORTUNATELY TOO OFTEN TOO TRUE...SIGH... So what to make of it? My approach in the past as a Smalltalk Contractor is to see how much the customer will bear in terms of doing things right, and then working within that framework. That is what one has to do if one wants the job. But on further thinking, I think that the demand for Smalltalk is great enough that we should be making these kind of compromises less often. We would be doing more good to be quite direct with the customer about what really needs to be done, and this will fly or not fly. If it does not fly, then the evaluation needs to be made whether it is worth working with the customer on that level of compromise with the prospect of later on bringing them more into the fold. This is usually not the case and so the best solution is often to find the nearest door. Dr. Deming (the man who brought quality to Japan), pointed out that it is important to do things right the first time. The extra time and expense spent transitioning to "Object Oriented" when object oriented is the right thing to do is worth the time, effort, and risk. Unfortunely in today's climate often there still doesn't seem to be enough stability around the issue of Smalltalk Development to make a transition to Smalltalk much more than a crap shoot. This is mostly due to the prevalence of shortcomings of understanding about the relevant critical issues on the part of those who are in position to make the critical decisions. So in the final analysis it may be best to go where people are willing to use the right technology and thus help them get ahead of those who want to use the new technologies, but aren't willing to make the transition investment of using it in the right way.