Tell me about it...working on a project now where I have never met the DBA, and couldn't pronounce his name if I tried. This dude is crazy.
I get access to the first part of data, and he is dead set on _always_ using fixed length char fields for every single field, and nulls are a nono as well. So what does he do? Puts some stupid word that means that this field has no value like "No Color" for 50,000 products! Then I get another view from him today, but it's an inventory table and the dimwit has made all the quantity fields money data types, and allowed nulls! The inconsistency of it all boggles my mind. I wouldn't even want to think what would happen if I asked for normalized data. He'd probably ask what is so strange about it in the first place :) On top of it all for some reason I'm not allowed to tell this guy he is an idiot...some kind of IT politics. Must treat nicely. They have to get some kind of official approval to add any kind of records to the database, wont provide us with a schema, and of course...it's due in three weeks. Bah! -- jon Friday, June 14, 2002, 12:50:40 AM, you wrote: T> lol I hear ya. Still bad code can be cleaned up fairly easily enough .. as T> compaired to really bad database design, which I have had the pleasure of T> encountering, and which no measure of nice tight code can ever hope to fix. T> Maybe add DB design concepts to your cattle prod class? hehe. T> Todd T> ----- Original Message ----- T> From: "Michael Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> T> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> T> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:05 AM T> Subject: Throwing the baby back >> Years ago I helped give birth to what was supposed to be something great T> for CF; a methodology to help organize code and enforce best practices. If I T> knew then what I knew now, I'd have tried to kill it before it got started. >> Yes, I'm ranting a bit. I'm helping out a friend with a project and T> modifying a commercial product (one he paid money for). Now you'd expect T> that a commercial product would have good code, right? You'd expect that a T> product that supposedly followed a methodology would have good code, right? T> That the code would be written intelligently, that it would not repeat T> itself or fall over itself, right? Well, this code is poorly written, does T> not use any best practices (I see CFSETs with pound signs around T> everything), uses one of the Fusebox methodologies (one of as the T> methodology has splintered) and is just not good code. And I have to make it T> good code. >> I'm going to start CF classes. If you write bad code, you get hit with a T> shock prod. If you release bad code, you get abused by a large bull (let T> your imagination run free here). It'll be learn it right and tight or wish T> you were in a Turkish jail being interrogated by Abdul. >> <end of rant> >> >> Michael Dinowitz >> Master of the House of Fusion >> http://www.houseoffusion.com T> ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
