May 23, 2009 at 11:11 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Real SQL Server Experts
May 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Despite their undoubted depth of their knowledge and frightening intelligence, those in charge of the T-SQL language at Microsoft often lack recent frontline experience. In this respect, they are less well-qualified to dictate the direction that T-SQL takes...
I simply could not have said it better except that things like the SSMS GUI also fall into that category. The folks on the ANSI board need to listen up, as well.
And who was it that decided on the new Office 2007 menues? What a mess. They claim that it was all due to customer feedback... nothing like a design by a really big committee to really muck up the works.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Quite a few of the developers at Microsoft, but I'm not sure if it's a majority. The people building the language seem to be smart, and they are looking for ways to improve things, but as with anything built by committee, it might suffer from compromise.
The feedback cycle seems strange. MVPs constantly give feedback, but I'm not sure how in sync we are with developers. Seems like often they've already decided, or they give us ideas so wet that we don't know what feedback to give.
Office 2007, I think, is a mess for IT folks, but some of the less technical people I know like it. Simpler for them.
May 23, 2009 at 9:30 pm
At the risk of being seen as a troll, this is where open source software tends to shine (though not always...). Basically, when you have access to the codebase, then you can either contribute or - if that's not successful - fork the project.
This is a real challenge for closed source companies.
May 23, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Heh... Open Source... Yep, I've seen what happens there. Just look at what some people write CLR's for. Some of it is good. Most of it is terrible.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 23, 2009 at 9:41 pm
May 23, 2009 at 10:01 pm
ta.bu.shi.da.yu (5/23/2009)
Well, bare in mind I'm talking about organized projects, not little snippets of code. Look at the Samba project - they're about to get to the point where you can replace a DC in a Windows domain. Then look at the Postgres project, they're doing amazing work also.
Well, bare in mind that you made no such stipulation to begin with. 😉 I agree that well thought out projects can usually be a real benefit in open source environments. The problem is that many people add code that just shouldn't be called "code" even in such well organized projects.
Look at MySQL... I don't remember what the function is called but they have a function to create a numbered "table" on the fly. Last time I tested it (years ago now), it took a really, really long time just to generate a lousy million numbers. It was part of such an organized project and the code is terrible.
As with anything else, there are pros and cons to things like open sourced code.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 24, 2009 at 2:08 am
Jeff Moden (5/23/2009)
ta.bu.shi.da.yu (5/23/2009)
Well, bare in mind I'm talking about organized projects, not little snippets of code. Look at the Samba project - they're about to get to the point where you can replace a DC in a Windows domain. Then look at the Postgres project, they're doing amazing work also.Well, bare in mind that you made no such stipulation to begin with. 😉
A fair point - sorry about that.
I agree that well thought out projects can usually be a real benefit in open source environments. The problem is that many people add code that just shouldn't be called "code" even in such well organized projects.
Look at MySQL... I don't remember what the function is called but they have a function to create a numbered "table" on the fly. Last time I tested it (years ago now), it took a really, really long time just to generate a lousy million numbers. It was part of such an organized project and the code is terrible.
I'm not a huge fan of MySQL, ever since I read the following blog post by its founder. However, I think it probably does scale, given that Wikipedia use it for their backend database.
As with anything else, there are pros and cons to things like open sourced code.
Absolutely! I'm just saying that I think that open source projects are more influencable or are quicker to implement changes than closed source companies. My $0.02.
May 24, 2009 at 10:13 am
I would agree that Open Source tools can respond quicker, and changes can be made. However it's a double edged sword, as Jeff pointed out. Often there are people that changes things they shouldn't.
And forks cause other issues with support and understanding. If you've forked the tool, if it breaks or when someone else expects it to work another way, it can cause other issues.
Open Source solves some problems, but creates others. Microsoft has to make decisions and we won't always like them. I would like to see more add-ons and additions to things like SSMS rather than having it closed off.
May 24, 2009 at 10:16 am
The people best qualified to pass verdict on T-SQL, or any other tool, are the people for whose use it was designed. The right to debate and argue with developers at Microsoft about how they've built products is not the sole the preserve of academics, trainers, MVPs, and other assorted members of Microsoft's "inner circle".
Make sure you don't run afoul of the "Redmond does no wrong fun club" even if you make valid criticism.
I questioned the choice of PowerShell as the core scripting language coming from my decades of scripting and development experience on another redgate forum and was told basically to shut up and enjoy the ride.
So I'm struggling to jump through hoops writing in a Yet Another Syntax. (Already working in VB, VFP, C#, Python, JScript and TSQL, not to mention other tools on other platforms....)
:crazy:
May 24, 2009 at 10:57 am
ta.bu.shi.da.yu (5/24/2009)
Absolutely! I'm just saying that I think that open source projects are more influencable or are quicker to implement changes than closed source companies. My $0.02.
You and I both agree on that. The thing we may not agree upon is that I don't believe the ability to make very quick changes is always an advantage. Having the ability to quickly change something is great especially when it comes to quickly repairing a mistake. I'll also suggest that having the ability to chickly change something will likely make you more prone to mistakes unless you have a stong regimen to prevent mistakes. That creates a bit of a paradox in my mind. That paradox is embodied by the old saw of "Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but there's always time to do it over?" 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 24, 2009 at 11:09 am
saw of "Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but there's always time to do it over?"
and over, and over, and over - until we no longer remember what it was supposed to do in the first place.
Jeffrey Williams
“We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations.”
― Charles R. Swindoll
How to post questions to get better answers faster
Managing Transaction Logs
May 25, 2009 at 2:02 am
I am just a programmer. Been in the business for over 10 years now, I have changed the way I code so many times, but when it comes to SQL code, its still the same, horribly the same 🙂
I Might create/use stuff to make things simpler, wrappers, helpers, flashy SQL text editors etc... But, it still is the same old SQL I learned in University
I say time for change, even if it is gradual
May 25, 2009 at 6:45 am
Jeff Moden (5/24/2009)
ta.bu.shi.da.yu (5/24/2009)
Absolutely! I'm just saying that I think that open source projects are more influencable or are quicker to implement changes than closed source companies. My $0.02.You and I both agree on that. The thing we may not agree upon is that I don't believe the ability to make very quick changes is always an advantage. Having the ability to quickly change something is great especially when it comes to quickly repairing a mistake. I'll also suggest that having the ability to chickly change something will likely make you more prone to mistakes unless you have a stong regimen to prevent mistakes. That creates a bit of a paradox in my mind. That paradox is embodied by the old saw of "Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but there's always time to do it over?" 🙂
Actually, I do agree with you. I work for a commercial, closed source software house that was recently purchased by EMC. I see a great deal of pluses and minuses to both approaches to development, and I certainly never believe that quick and ill-thought out changes are a good thing! Believe me, I've seen what happens when changes aren't thought through and implemented quickly. It ain't pretty...
🙂
May 25, 2009 at 6:46 am
Damus (5/25/2009)
I am just a programmer. Been in the business for over 10 years now, I have changed the way I code so many times, but when it comes to SQL code, its still the same, horribly the same 🙂I Might create/use stuff to make things simpler, wrappers, helpers, flashy SQL text editors etc... But, it still is the same old SQL I learned in University
I say time for change, even if it is gradual
Why? Just because it's the same old thing doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. I'm curious as to your reasoning.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 43 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply