Comments for let x=x http://www.crazymcphee.net/x programming idiom and methodology Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:56:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on New software, old process, big mistake by Scot Mcphee http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/03/06/new-software-old-process/comment-page-1/#comment-621 Scot Mcphee Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:56:50 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=526#comment-621 But sending your letters through the typing pool (if you have a typing pool the letter itself would be typed there), IS a different process to using a 'mail-merge' program - presumably the marketing directory can upload to that program a word file that contains the letter and the addresses are selected from the company CRM. Eliminating the typing pool isn't exactly a micro-optimisation. They've replaced the typists and a part-time typewriter mechanic with an entire IT infrastructure and department, so it's not necessarily cheaper, either. It has enabled the business to do new things they could not do before - like access their entire customer database at once, and keep a history of all interactions will each customer too. But sending your letters through the typing pool (if you have a typing pool the letter itself would be typed there), IS a different process to using a ‘mail-merge’ program – presumably the marketing directory can upload to that program a word file that contains the letter and the addresses are selected from the company CRM.

Eliminating the typing pool isn’t exactly a micro-optimisation. They’ve replaced the typists and a part-time typewriter mechanic with an entire IT infrastructure and department, so it’s not necessarily cheaper, either. It has enabled the business to do new things they could not do before – like access their entire customer database at once, and keep a history of all interactions will each customer too.

]]> Comment on New software, old process, big mistake by Robert Watkins http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/03/06/new-software-old-process/comment-page-1/#comment-620 Robert Watkins Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:29:38 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=526#comment-620 Actually, software _can_ be used to do micro-optimisation of inefficient processes. E.g. using a mail merge from a customer database to send out form letters is more efficient than printing off 10 customer details at a time and giving them to the stenographers in the typing pool to fill out on the pre-printed stationary. These micro-optimisations have, in the past, produced considerable cost savings. It's obvious why they are popular - they are simple to identify, simple to implement, and simple to prove they worked. Management loves them. The problem is - in any organisation even remotely serious about improving, they've already all been done. Actually, software _can_ be used to do micro-optimisation of inefficient processes. E.g. using a mail merge from a customer database to send out form letters is more efficient than printing off 10 customer details at a time and giving them to the stenographers in the typing pool to fill out on the pre-printed stationary.

These micro-optimisations have, in the past, produced considerable cost savings. It’s obvious why they are popular – they are simple to identify, simple to implement, and simple to prove they worked. Management loves them.

The problem is – in any organisation even remotely serious about improving, they’ve already all been done.

]]> Comment on New software, old process, big mistake by Scot Mcphee http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/03/06/new-software-old-process/comment-page-1/#comment-617 Scot Mcphee Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:26:59 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=526#comment-617 Ben, a business process that is inefficient, needs to improve, i.e.change the process. No amount of software, in absence of process improvement, will achieve this. IMHO. ;-) Ben, a business process that is inefficient, needs to improve, i.e.change the process. No amount of software, in absence of process improvement, will achieve this. IMHO. ;-)

]]> Comment on New software, old process, big mistake by Ben Ihle http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/03/06/new-software-old-process/comment-page-1/#comment-615 Ben Ihle Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:09:16 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=526#comment-615 "I don’t hold that software makes an existing business process 'efficient' at all" I Don't know about that... have you seen some business processes? Software is all about automating manual or inefficient processes. I do agree however that if it isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed unless it allows for new growth (which I believe is the thrust of what you are saying). BTW, I don't think you are allowed to use 'IMHO' :) “I don’t hold that software makes an existing business process ‘efficient’ at all”

I Don’t know about that… have you seen some business processes? Software is all about automating manual or inefficient processes. I do agree however that if it isn’t broken, it shouldn’t be fixed unless it allows for new growth (which I believe is the thrust of what you are saying).

BTW, I don’t think you are allowed to use ‘IMHO’ :)

]]> Comment on Glassfish is doomed in the ‘department’ by Alexis MP http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/02/04/glassfish-is-doomed-in-the-department/comment-page-1/#comment-501 Alexis MP Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:59:16 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=508#comment-501 Hi Scot, nice stylish write up. Oracle's Mike Lehman has these comments : http://blog.eisele.net/2010/02/glassfish-vs-weblogic-10-visions-for.html?showComment=1265316113593#c573858513072567459 Although I don't expect them to fully take you out of your cynicism though :) Hi Scot, nice stylish write up.

Oracle’s Mike Lehman has these comments : http://blog.eisele.net/2010/02/glassfish-vs-weblogic-10-visions-for.html?showComment=1265316113593#c573858513072567459

Although I don’t expect them to fully take you out of your cynicism though :)

]]> Comment on Glassfish is doomed in the ‘department’ by eduardo pelegri http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/02/04/glassfish-is-doomed-in-the-department/comment-page-1/#comment-500 eduardo pelegri Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:09:10 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=508#comment-500 No need to excuse yourself at all! You are correct and, in addition to the roadmap, Oracle needs to explain how GF will be bought (and sold). And, ultimately, the execution of all of these is what matters, of course. No need to excuse yourself at all! You are correct and, in addition to the roadmap, Oracle needs to explain how GF will be bought (and sold). And, ultimately, the execution of all of these is what matters, of course.

]]> Comment on Glassfish is doomed in the ‘department’ by Scot Mcphee http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/02/04/glassfish-is-doomed-in-the-department/comment-page-1/#comment-499 Scot Mcphee Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:10:04 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=508#comment-499 Eduardo, You'll have to excuse my cynicism, I guess. I've been close to Oracle Fusion Middleware implementations the past couple of years. From my experience with the local sales teams, and the way they tend to sell the 'red stack' vision to their customers, I guess I don't feel confident that whatever the group PM or GM might say in a 'roadmap' statement will translate into the appropriate action out in the field. Of course my full judgement should be reserved until I can evaluate their execution of said roadmap. Based on past experience, I just don't hold confidence. They can be like a swarm of Borg boarding your department performing a site audit and wielding complex licensing agreements counting up every single CPU cycle and adding a dollar for each one. Eduardo,

You’ll have to excuse my cynicism, I guess. I’ve been close to Oracle Fusion Middleware implementations the past couple of years. From my experience with the local sales teams, and the way they tend to sell the ‘red stack’ vision to their customers, I guess I don’t feel confident that whatever the group PM or GM might say in a ‘roadmap’ statement will translate into the appropriate action out in the field.

Of course my full judgement should be reserved until I can evaluate their execution of said roadmap. Based on past experience, I just don’t hold confidence. They can be like a swarm of Borg boarding your department performing a site audit and wielding complex licensing agreements counting up every single CPU cycle and adding a dollar for each one.

]]> Comment on Glassfish is doomed in the ‘department’ by eduardo pelegri http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/02/04/glassfish-is-doomed-in-the-department/comment-page-1/#comment-498 eduardo pelegri Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:31:59 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=508#comment-498 Hi Scott. I sympathize with your perspective. There are some small things I could say, but the two main thoughts I can contribute are: If Oracle does not really support GlassFish, many customers will just go to JBoss, and I believe this is clear to the Oracle folks; and, "The proof of the pudding is in the roadmap" - see [1]. I hope the near future will provide concrete evidence of how Oracle will treat GlassFish. [1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=59317#332069 Hi Scott.

I sympathize with your perspective. There are some small things I could say, but the two main thoughts I can contribute are: If Oracle does not really support GlassFish, many customers will just go to JBoss, and I believe this is clear to the Oracle folks; and, “The proof of the pudding is in the roadmap” – see [1].

I hope the near future will provide concrete evidence of how Oracle will treat GlassFish.

[1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=59317#332069

]]> Comment on Glassfish is doomed in the ‘department’ by David Sachdev http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/02/04/glassfish-is-doomed-in-the-department/comment-page-1/#comment-496 David Sachdev Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:25:07 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=508#comment-496 Finally - someone who sees it like I do. After watching the various Oracle webinars, and then going back and seeing the more detailed session they did on Java tools - I couldn't help but to come up with my own "What they meant to say" phrases. I essentially think that NetBeans and Glassfish are on their way out as we know them, but they want t make sure to maintain enough control over them to avoid the forks. Instead they want to groom those customers for the borg - and will do that slowly over time so they don't realize what is happening to them. http://www.translucent-development.com David Finally – someone who sees it like I do. After watching the various Oracle webinars, and then going back and seeing the more detailed session they did on Java tools – I couldn’t help but to come up with my own “What they meant to say” phrases.

I essentially think that NetBeans and Glassfish are on their way out as we know them, but they want t make sure to maintain enough control over them to avoid the forks. Instead they want to groom those customers for the borg – and will do that slowly over time so they don’t realize what is happening to them.

http://www.translucent-development.com

David

]]> Comment on Glassfish is doomed in the ‘department’ by Holger Schneider http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/2010/02/04/glassfish-is-doomed-in-the-department/comment-page-1/#comment-494 Holger Schneider Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:37:33 +0000 http://www.crazymcphee.net/x/?p=508#comment-494 At my company we used Weblogic for many years. Due to high costs we moved to JBoss. Then we discovered we do not need EJBs and also we discovered Spring. So we moved to Tomcat and use Spring for everything. To say Spring is big and heavy with lots of moving parts is not correct. Spring is the most lightweight framework we found for Java development and also Tomcat. Also we use only the Spring jars we need for our applications to make it even smaller. The only missing component in Tomcat is JMS so we plugin Active MQ. Our development times and deployment times are now much smaller. We looked at Glassfish but we do not need EJB and J2EE and nobody use Glassfish. At my company we used Weblogic for many years. Due to high costs we moved to JBoss. Then we discovered we do not need EJBs and also we discovered Spring. So we moved to Tomcat and use Spring for everything. To say Spring is big and heavy with lots of moving parts is not correct. Spring is the most lightweight framework we found for Java development and also Tomcat. Also we use only the Spring jars we need for our applications to make it even smaller. The only missing component in Tomcat is JMS so we plugin Active MQ. Our development times and deployment times are now much smaller. We looked at Glassfish but we do not need EJB and J2EE and nobody use Glassfish.

]]>