Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Clutterfreak Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy,sci.physics Subject: Re: I think in FORTH & program in C/C++. Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:42:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <54uelg9k8mc6kv7s5k7qadk8kg8kjm1ni9@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 17:42:03 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="10855"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.1.2 X-User-ID: eJwNyscBwDAIBLCVwOYo4xDK/iM4egtXWctEoYLF6i3mhZwFkJ1Hw6cp5PhHXZYenRzeTrIz/52AjVKlMQgPSd8VPg== Cancel-Lock: sha1:w7FCwlO+wLdIz/stXICpBHZCQiQ= X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 211004-4, 10/4/2021), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.setup:4731 comp.os.linux.advocacy:595270 sci.physics:833710 On 10/4/2021 9:09 AM, rbowman wrote: > On 10/03/2021 08:35 PM, Clutterfreak wrote: >> On 10/2/2021 3:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> When my girlfriend of the time took a COBOL course, it was impressed >>> on her that the really important stuff was analysing the business and >>> writing the specification for the data structure and the  program >>> modules. >>> >>> Pure programmers who just turned specs into COBOL were only one step >>> above plant life. >>> >>> 'Anal Progs' were the next step up. But business analysts were the >>> dog's pyjamas. >> >> >> Hasn't that practice become obsolete these days? What an established >> business needs is just to use SAP. Every conceivable (general) need for >> a business is handled in that group of software. I only know it is >> expensive, but I doubt that if just the right features in it are turned >> on it would cost the business more than hiring various specialists doing >> such analyses manually. >> > > Yeah, now we have agile full stack programmers versus top down > structured programming.  I've seen methodologies come, go, and come > again over the last 50 years. My takeaway is some people can program, > some can't. > > I was agile before agile was cool. It came from realizing most people > stating the requirements don't have a clue what they really want. Cobble > together a prototype and listen to the complaints. Rinse and repeat. > > Back in the top down days people would spend months if not years > developing the design. If it was found to be impossible to implement or > didn't perform, too bad. There was so much involvement by various pointy > haired bosses at that point that you would do what was designed. > > It makes a lot of sense. For situations specific to a company of course ground up approach is the best (the only way indeed). It has to be done in quick, configurable, and simple enough steps so software would constantly test the waters while growing. But for cases that's general to _any_ company with warehouse, like payroll, inventory control, nowadays immunization and health, etc work is already done at the best possible level in SAP. It doesn't cover all situations but certainly covers all the general needs of any company. Cheap! Compared to doing it manually. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus