Rant

[Len Boorman]

How do you explain to a dogmatic person without resorting to bad language or violence that his database structure is crap because (responses in brackets)

1) No Relationships declared But they are decalred in the queries and therefore that's okay)

2) Identification of entities is flawed. (But in my job role I see things differently, e.g the attributes of a part should be in the request table cos to me they are part of the request and yes I may deny the request)


3) The data is not normalised (Hmm basic answer was that Normalisation not understood or considered relevant)

4) Table structure reflects Procedure rather than the Data to be managed.( Because that is what I do)

Bloody amateurs

L

 

[Newman]

(Because that is how my boss wants me to do it.)

I usualy explain it simply then, if they don't want to understand/listen at my advises, I leave it for others to complete. I'd rather spend my time helping someone who wants to learn than loose it with someone who comes for help then argues to what I say.

I must say that I admire Bob Larson for his patience. I couldn't held some threads like he does.

 

[Newman]

Bloody amateurs--
All of them need to learn how it works.
The problem is not with those who don't know, but more with those who don't want to know. We all have been starting as amateurs.

 

[Len Boorman]

Comments about amateurs quite correct . We were all that way to begine with. (Eats humble pie)

But dogmatic ******* who do not and do not wish to understand what you are saying do get to me abit.

Strangely enough I was asked to the discussion so that they could take advantage of my knowledge and experience.

Ah well back to the posts from those that wish to learn

L

 

[Brianwarnock]

The problem is not with those who don't know, but more with those who don't want to know. We all have been starting as amateurs.

Couldn't agree more, when I went to help at a charity they all new nothing and I said "ask, ignorance is not a crime, but not wanting to learn is a sin"
We got on like a house on fire.

Brian

 

[statsman]

Couldn't agree more, when I went to help at a charity they all new nothing and I said "ask, ignorance is not a crime, but not wanting to learn is a sin"
We got on like a house on fire.

Brian

I have a similar fav. expression:

"There are no stupid questions, only people who are afraid they'll look stupid by asking them".

As to the main topic:

Most folks are in love with their work. They started this database using this new software and it works. Why change it?
Well it works fine now, but how about next year when there aren't 100 records but 10,000 and it takes 20 minutes for the queries to run.
One of the problems I've encountered with people is with the terms used. I like to say "consistent" instead of normalized for example. Makes it easier for me to explain it and for the customer to understand it.

 

[Ron_dK]

How do you explain to a dogmatic person .....that his database structure is crap ...

Tell them in an polite manner to forget anything they ever learned about Excel and show them in a PPT presentation what a difference it makes when using a (normalised) DATABASE in lieu of a spreadsheet

Agree with the others, it took me a while to understand normalised relationships between amateurs

 

[Len Boorman]

Calmed down now and decided that I am too old to be concerned about such trivialities. I shall await the decision and when I loose (as I do believe I will) then I will respond in a suitable manner.

I will list my qualifications, training and application list and request that since another person's statement carried more weight could I kindly have sight of his qualifications, training and application list so that I may see the error or my ways.

After all I am sure that the manager making the decision would consider the credentials of discussion participants.

Year right

L

 

[The_Doc_Man]

People need to be flexible in order to be able to provide sustainable work.

There is "flexible" and then there is "spineless"

basic answer was that Normalisation not understood or considered relevant

Actually, given the first reason - which could well be true, since it ain't always inuitive - the second reason follows logically. ANYTHING you don't understand is obviously irrelevant.

Comments about amateurs quite correct . We were all that way to begine with

I was NEVER an amateur. I always expected money for my work, which made me prima facie a professional! Freebies, I did for my own record keeping. But if you want my time, I want your money. I.e. professional. Now, I won't say "professional programmer." In a way, I'm a computer gigolo. I'll get in bed with your problem for money.

I'd rather spend my time helping someone who wants to learn than loose it with someone who comes for help then argues to what I say.

Hoo, dogies! You are preaching to the choir now, Newman.

Because that is how my boss wants me to do it.)

The most improperly maligned person around. Odds are, your boss wants to MANAGE. S/he wants YOU to do it RIGHT. You weren't hired to manage. Your boss wasn't promoted to management to still program. When you have a boss that won't let go of the reins, it is time to pull out this article and show him/her this statement:

"Listen here, Mr./Mrs./Ms. Boss, keep your nose to your job of managing and leave the designing to someone who gets PAID for it - like you AREN'T being paid for it. You are now being paid to MANAGE. So do your bloody job and let your employee do the job s/he currently holds. BOTH of you will be happier, healthier persons for it."

Regarding discussions, I guess I am in an enviable position. Nobody ever argues "techie" with me at work. They argue policy or politics or available funding. They don't understand what I do. Yet it ain't that difficult. I've just been doing it since 1981, so I know a bit about it.