|
| LDM definition does not fully propagate to RAD application? |
| Débuté par Ludwig Jacob, 12 aoû. 2004 22:41 - 9 réponses |
| |
| | | |
|
| |
Posté le 12 août 2004 - 22:41 |
I have two files Prozedur and ProzedurTyp (procedure and type of procedure) linked by a relation on the item ProzedurTypID like this:
Moreover, I have this combo box definition in the RAD tab of the LDM editor regarding the item 'ProzedurtypID' in the file Prozedur:
Unfortunately after RAD generation this is what I get: |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 13 août 2004 - 09:27 |
Hi Ludwig,
yes, mostly they dont care about definitions in the RAD-Tabs of the LDM. In fact, some simple definitions are used like input masks for edit controls. Funny behaviour starts with check boxes ...
No, RAD is not perfect and has not been changed since WinDev 5.5 in most respects. Behind the scenes, PC Soft has made WinDev files multi-user and that's it. For medium to big commercial applications, RAD will give you a quite usable skeleton, nothing more. As I've shown earlier, RAD introduces a few bugs too and it does not safeguard the user against any incorrect input. As a programmer, you have to do a lot after letting RAD do its job.
The perfect way to describe all aspects of an application are UML diagrams. UML supports object oriented programming by definition. It's not been a whim of a PC Soft manager to include UML diagrams in WinDev 7/8. So, watch out for WD9! RAD is dead. I think, we'll see WD9/French on PC Soft's web site soon. Bets are accepted. My bet is late October, early November 2004.
Best regards,
Guenter |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 13 août 2004 - 10:01 |
Hi Guenther,
the first message contained in your answer is a major disappointment for me. I have been using clarion from version 2 and always liked its two-way interface between RAD and the generated application. The last version I used was 5.5 and I gave up on it largely because I could not handle images with the ease I needed. Now I have to learn that the Windev RAD part is bound to die in a largely unready state. Does not build trust in me.
The second message about UML leaves me in doubt: With clarion I experienced the deep despair that programmers can go through with completely new concepts (remeber Wizatrons?), or with completely new implementations of existing concepts. Even if in november PCSoft show up with some UML mechanism, how can anybody be sure -specifically given their record with the RAD implementation- that this is useable e.g. in the next three years?
musing
Ludwig
Hi Ludwig,
yes, mostly they dont care about definitions in the RAD-Tabs of the LDM. In fact, some simple definitions are used like input masks for edit controls. Funny behaviour starts with check boxes ...
No, RAD is not perfect and has not been changed since WinDev 5.5 in most respects. Behind the scenes, PC Soft has made WinDev files multi-user and that's it. For medium to big commercial applications, RAD will give you a quite usable skeleton, nothing more. As I've shown earlier, RAD introduces a few bugs too and it does not safeguard the user against any incorrect input. As a programmer, you have to do a lot after letting RAD do its job.
The perfect way to describe all aspects of an application are UML diagrams. UML supports object oriented programming by definition. It's not been a whim of a PC Soft manager to include UML diagrams in WinDev 7/8. So, watch out for WD9! RAD is dead. I think, we'll see WD9/French on PC Soft's web site soon. Bets are accepted. My bet is late October, early November 2004.
Best regards,
Guenter |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 13 août 2004 - 10:36 |
G'day Guenter
One of the things I like about Windev is that I can code very efficiently using procedural code and am not forced into objects so I hope that any increased focus on object orientation is not to the detriment of other coding methods.
I would like to see a proper data dictionary holding field attributes and rules etc before anything else as it would be much more useful in every day programming.
Regards
Al |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 13 août 2004 - 11:17 |
Hi Ludwig,
After using Clarion sice 1987, I too got used to the RAD, however I find it's much faster to generate the analysis in WD and then make all the windows manually.
You can still pull tables from files or queries, queries are easy to build and you can choose how many windows are generated (not so with RAD). I only use one main window and many planes, so lots of windows is not good around here.
For forms and other spearate windows, you can choose to generate a new window with RAD code from the New wizard. For forms, this is a better way to use WD (from my point of view) as you can choose to only make a basic window to suit your application - no getting lost in the WD RAD depth of code fantasy.
Then once you have the visions and forms and tables you need, there are no unused windows ot queries lying about to get confused by.
I agree fully with Al that procedural code is the way to go - it works and is relatively quick.
I also subscribe to the 'quick and easy' formular rather than trying to invent news ways of doing things and it work for me - and by customers.
Try doing some manual stuff and I'm sure you will enjoy it more than with Clarion.
Gill
Hi Guenther, the first message contained in your answer is a major disappointment for me. I have been using clarion from version 2 and always liked its two-way interface between RAD and the generated application. The last version I used was 5.5 and I gave up on it largely because I could not handle images with the ease I needed. Now I have to learn that the Windev RAD part is bound to die in a largely unready state. Does not build trust in me. The second message about UML leaves me in doubt: With clarion I experienced the deep despair that programmers can go through with completely new concepts (remeber Wizatrons?), or with completely new implementations of existing concepts. Even if in november PCSoft show up with some UML mechanism, how can anybody be sure -specifically given their record with the RAD implementation- that this is useable e.g. in the next three years? musing Ludwig Hi Ludwig,
yes, mostly they dont care about definitions in the RAD-Tabs of the LDM. In fact, some simple definitions are used like input masks for edit controls. Funny behaviour starts with check boxes ...
No, RAD is not perfect and has not been changed since WinDev 5.5 in most respects. Behind the scenes, PC Soft has made WinDev files multi-user and that's it. For medium to big commercial applications, RAD will give you a quite usable skeleton, nothing more. As I've shown earlier, RAD introduces a few bugs too and it does not safeguard the user against any incorrect input. As a programmer, you have to do a lot after letting RAD do its job.
The perfect way to describe all aspects of an application are UML diagrams. UML supports object oriented programming by definition. It's not been a whim of a PC Soft manager to include UML diagrams in WinDev 7/8. So, watch out for WD9! RAD is dead. I think, we'll see WD9/French on PC Soft's web site soon. Bets are accepted. My bet is late October, early November 2004.
Best regards,
Guenter |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 13 août 2004 - 15:06 |
Gill,
thank you very much for your insight. I will try what you proposed.
Ludwig |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 13 août 2004 - 23:55 |
G'day Guenter
One of the things I like about Windev is that I can code very efficiently using procedural code and am not forced into objects so I hope that any increased focus on object orientation is not to the detriment of other coding methods.
Hi Al,
no, PC Soft will not stop anyone of us in using the good old procedural way of programming. But there's a limit to the procedural definition of a program and though WinDev (procedural) RAD in no way touches the limits, one can easily see the limits when comparing the good old De Marco diagrams (1984) with UML diagrams of today. Later, in 1989, Edward Yourdon has shown us that there was much more to an application than its description by a single DeMarco-diagram.
>From this point on, the object oriented design method has started its way into the offices of systems analysts. In the 70s, we discussed things with systems analysts based on their flow charts, their proprietary definition language, their pseudo code. Nowadays, programmers discuss new software on basis of UML-diagrams - objects, methods, properties, inheritance. Systems analysts have and use tools like System Architekt or Silverrun. UML is the standard of systems analysis of today. Numerous competing methods have disappeared.
We have to accept that there exists no logical way to fully describe an application in procedural form. Maybe, that's been just an accident, no people there to develop something like Yourdons 'Structured Systems Analysis' using a procedural concept, maybe there was no better way to describe real world situations than in an OO way. Yes, one can take an object oriented analysis and make a procedural program out of that, but it will take a huge, maybe senseless effort. The better way to go is to take the OO analysis and to translate it 1:1 into an OO program.
I would like to see a proper data dictionary holding field attributes and rules etc before anything else as it would be much more useful in every day programming.
Regards
Al
Yes, as I've said, RAD and the data dictionary have in no way reached the limits of generating nice procedural programs. And I have to stress, that a lot more of definitions should go into the data dictionary. But, definitions in the data dictionary cannot keep pace with an OO-application defined by an UML-diagram.
Let's stay simple. Let's say, in our data dictionary, we can define that customer numbers generally should be kept in the range from 200001 to 299999. An UML-definition could say: If that customer is from area A, the range is 210001 to 219999, if that customer is from area B, the range of valid customer numbers can only be 220001 to 229999.
UML puts down the logic and thus, the definition needs within the data dictionary are shrinking. Same goes for the TAB assignment. In the data dict of WD5.5 we could define onto which Tab the control for a certain data field should be placed by RAD. As you can see, this isn't possible anymore. UML will take care for that too. Later, yes, but it will.
But currently we feel, PC Soft has stripped a terribly needed feature. Of course, PC Soft is fighting with the real world: programmers, bugs, priorities, documentation and by this they do not differ so much from our own companies.
Best regards,
Guenter |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 14 août 2004 - 03:55 |
Gday Guenter
I agree that UML seems the way to go in terms of the design process, but in the end the final stage of the analysis still ends up as a flow chart with processes and branches etc which I still feel can be done quicker in procedural code, however I am arguing from a position of long held beliefs rather than actually trying out the OO process in depth so I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong.
I try and design data driven apps so in the case if your example I would run that from a database holding a list of areas with customer number ranges which would be extendable by the user. What I would like from PCSoft is a way of accessing a set of rules,attributes etc for a field or window that is quicker than looking them up in another database using hreadseek().
Your answer however has prompted me to investigate UML further and I found a local UML Developer that appears to have a promising product with a demo download that I will try out so I can learn more.
http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/index.htm
Regards
Al |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 18 septembre 2004 - 13:53 |
Hello Guenter,
Has your comment 'RAD is dead.' only a meaning for WinDev ? I think so, because Magic (RAD) in their documentation for the coming release : 'The eDeveloper II environment will .... increasing RAD-ness .....'
Regards, Teun
Hi Ludwig,
yes, mostly they dont care about definitions in the RAD-Tabs of the LDM. In fact, some simple definitions are used like input masks for edit controls. Funny behaviour starts with check boxes ...
No, RAD is not perfect and has not been changed since WinDev 5.5 in most respects. Behind the scenes, PC Soft has made WinDev files multi-user and that's it. For medium to big commercial applications, RAD will give you a quite usable skeleton, nothing more. As I've shown earlier, RAD introduces a few bugs too and it does not safeguard the user against any incorrect input. As a programmer, you have to do a lot after letting RAD do its job.
The perfect way to describe all aspects of an application are UML diagrams. UML supports object oriented programming by definition. It's not been a whim of a PC Soft manager to include UML diagrams in WinDev 7/8. So, watch out for WD9! RAD is dead. I think, we'll see WD9/French on PC Soft's web site soon. Bets are accepted. My bet is late October, early November 2004.
Best regards,
Guenter |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
Posté le 18 septembre 2004 - 15:00 |
Teun, my comment about RAD referred to WinDev. RAD is based on the data dictionary and a couple of other definitions. This is by far not enough to fully describe an application. At the end of the road, I want to define the application once, generate it, test it and deploy. UML could deliver in regards to the definition, cause you can describe an application thourougly with UML. See 'System Architect' from Popkin Software as an example. Just to prove that WinDev is the leading tool in PC-based 4GLs, PC Soft has integrated 9 different UML diagrams into WinDev already. I expect to get extensive code generation from the UML-diagrams sooner or later. Be prepared, UML is OOP all the way!
Guenter
Hello Guenter, Has your comment 'RAD is dead.' only a meaning for WinDev ? I think so, because Magic (RAD) in their documentation for the coming release : 'The eDeveloper II environment will .... increasing RAD-ness .....' Regards, Teun Hi Ludwig,
yes, mostly they dont care about definitions in the RAD-Tabs of the LDM. In fact, some simple definitions are used like input masks for edit controls. Funny behaviour starts with check boxes ...
No, RAD is not perfect and has not been changed since WinDev 5.5 in most respects. Behind the scenes, PC Soft has made WinDev files multi-user and that's it. For medium to big commercial applications, RAD will give you a quite usable skeleton, nothing more. As I've shown earlier, RAD introduces a few bugs too and it does not safeguard the user against any incorrect input. As a programmer, you have to do a lot after letting RAD do its job.
The perfect way to describe all aspects of an application are UML diagrams. UML supports object oriented programming by definition. It's not been a whim of a PC Soft manager to include UML diagrams in WinDev 7/8. So, watch out for WD9! RAD is dead. I think, we'll see WD9/French on PC Soft's web site soon. Bets are accepted. My bet is late October, early November 2004.
Best regards,
Guenter |
| |
| |
| | | |
|
| | | | |
| | |
|