RE: New company architecture
- From: "Dave Markle" <DaveMarkle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 11:01:01 -0700
John-
I can picture myself on one of those committee meetings myself; I have been
there before. I know why companies like yours choose VB.NET over C#. IMO,
their rationale for doing so is seriously flawed. It's not that VB.NET isn't
a decent language, and I'm not trying to start a C# vs VB flamewar.
Companes who believe that they can leverage their existing code and
developer skills with VB, and translate that into VB.NET are sorely mistaken.
"OOP or not" isn't even an option with VB.NET. You are using OOP. It's a
fully OO language. Either your developers are writing good OOP code with
VB.NET or they're not.
Companies should absolutely not lead themselves to believe that a VB.NET
platform selection can be used in lieu of sufficient developer education.
You'll only end up with terrible .NET code that way. One of the reasons I
like C# so much is that it forces developers into the proper mindset for .NET
development; it's too easy for VB developers to continue on with their old
coding styles (On Error Goto comes to mind...) creating abysmal, and
error-prone code. If the powers that be in your company are thinking that VB
6 code can easily be translated into VB.NET, they are misinformed. In fact,
it's *much* easier for properly written VB.NET to be translated to C# than it
is to translate VB 6 into VB.NET. That's the bitter voice of experience
there talkin' to ya! And that's coming from a guy who wrote tons of VB 6
code, and came to these stark realizations when I first got the 1.0 betas of
the framework.
But I'm digressing here. IMO, my point to you is that whatever you decide
your architecture should be (I would not say that a choice of C# or VB really
constitutes any difference in "architecture"), serious developer education
(note that I didn't use the word "training" here) has to be a big,
fundamental part of your plan.
-Dave Markle
"John Wright" wrote:
> I have been asked to sit on the commitee that is designing the new
> architecture for the company. Currently we are a VB shop that uses SQL
> Server 2000 as the data store. In the company there are a vast array of
> programmers from beginners to advanced programmers. Up until now, the VB
> codes came through the VB ranks (version 3 and up) and are currently on
> version 6. We are moving to .NET with the release 2.0 framework and I have
> been mandiated to use VB.NET (I wanted C# but we can't have it all). I
> venture to say that only 10% of the programmers (50 programmers total), have
> any experience with OOP at all. Of those 10% only 2% have done OOP
> programming, the others know the concepts of OOP. Our new framework needs
> to be simple enough for everyone to use, yet robust enough to grow. All our
> clients are internal and 90% use client/server programs, the other 10% use
> the intranet.
>
> Our goals:
> 1. Provide a simple architecture that will provide consistancy throughout
> the programs and allow for easier maintance across IT departments
> 2. Provide a set of programming standards.
> 3. Increase reusability of components
> 4. Standardize database access, componenet communication, and client UI.
>
> I am pusing for OOP or an OOP hybrid of some sort. What I would like is an
> example of other architectures that companies are using. I have looked at
> some of the Microsoft MOF stuff, but is was high level and useless, I would
> like something more technical to see. If anyone out there can share their
> company architecture or give me some good resources for architecture it
> would be great.
>
> Katghoti
>
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: RE: .Net Distributed info
- Next by Date: RE: Cannot open Service Control Manager on computer...
- Previous by thread: RE: .Net Distributed info
- Next by thread: RE: Cannot open Service Control Manager on computer...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
