It amazes me SAP makes so much money...
-
Add PeopleSoft to that list. To be fair, both companies are trying to build an application that streamlines business. The only problem is that every business has different thoughts on how things should be done. SAP is German over-engineered and removes a lot of flexibility from the user side of things to get things done quickly, especially from a user standpoint. Accountants love it though because it makes their job so much easier.
SAP gets into a company through the management board (CEO/CIO). Non technical people worried about their seat in the company - not the company itself. Their goal is to implement a system that will work - they won't take riscs with new IT companies/technologies. If the projects fails they loose their pretty seat in the company... With SAP they cannot go wrong. It'll work eventually, slow & expensive, but it'll work and they'll keep their seat. After the implementation the saying is that everything works great, because nobody has the guts to admit that they spend X miliions for a piece of crap..
-
Surely, I can't be the only person to go through bits of SAP and think, if they can sell this, then in tech you apparently can pretty much shrink wrap and sell a turd to people who don't know any better. The more I dig into SAP the more WTFs I see. For instance... SAP Business One 8.8 Administration system ADP1 table definitions[^] From this one table alone I can see 3 problems at least... archaic naming convention, using text fields for boolean logic, and not using an ENUM field or lookup table where appropriate. More if I try, and this isn't counting the fact there are no foreign keys in the database, some of the denormalized data I've seen, and some stored procs with unnecessarily needed hard coded values. :doh:
Jeremy Falcon
So to sum it all up it sounds like we have the perception that exorbitant cost of product should equal better coding standards or at least an upgrade to better technology. What's new? I am curious about one aspect though... there was mention of poor referential integrity. Are you saying that there is actually misshapen data like, for instance, orphaned records or data points stored in the wrong fields or invalid values (i.e. an invalid enum value)? That would be more alarming.
-
Well, why don't we do it? There are certainly enough of us who can code, and enough with business knowledge/requirements. It's actually a project that's big enough for CP to handle. There aren't many that big. It would certainly be an opportunity to put feathers in a large number of caps.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Like most developers / programmers /(insert term du Jour here) your criticism/suggestion overlooks the key reason businesses continue using SAP and others like it. that is the Training and implementation costs involved with a new system. The larger the organization, the larger the cost is. One of the major reasons Windows8 failed was this exact fact. If you could keep the user interface the same and just clean up the back end, you would have a reasonable competitor. (No chance without a major lawsuit from SAP!) Ignoring that who would buy it and how would you sell it? The other reason would be who gets the money from the sales of the new product if there are any.... I have a package for small business and clients that have been with me since 1984. Over the years, the code has been refactored repeatedly, the user interface has bee virtually untouched. Finally, you may think that you can build a better mousetrap (like the creators of all the new languages :mad:), but I have my doubts. However solve the issues I bring up and I'm "in".
A giraffe is a horse designed by a committee....
-
Surely, I can't be the only person to go through bits of SAP and think, if they can sell this, then in tech you apparently can pretty much shrink wrap and sell a turd to people who don't know any better. The more I dig into SAP the more WTFs I see. For instance... SAP Business One 8.8 Administration system ADP1 table definitions[^] From this one table alone I can see 3 problems at least... archaic naming convention, using text fields for boolean logic, and not using an ENUM field or lookup table where appropriate. More if I try, and this isn't counting the fact there are no foreign keys in the database, some of the denormalized data I've seen, and some stored procs with unnecessarily needed hard coded values. :doh:
Jeremy Falcon
We tell a joke about SAP. We know many companies who have started migrating to SAP. A few who have given up, and NONE who have completed the migration yet! We finish with... Rumor has it, SAP is almost COMPLETELY on SAP now! :-)
-
No one ever got rich by being lazy. They may be greedy (although Bill Gates is the biggest giver to charity ever), but they are not lazy. Not to mention they took risks. I also wouldn't go so far as to call their products garbage. If they were in it just for the money they would never get this far.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Long statement about Google, Mary Ann Davidson, and the pain of working with Oracle products. Realized that I don't care, not worth kvetching over. [Oracle security chief to customers: Stop checking our code for vulnerabilities [Updated] | Ars Technica](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/oracle-security-chief-to-customers-stop-checking-our-code-for-vulnerabilities/) is worth the read for a laugh, if you're not familiar. I do need to point out that while no one has ever gotten rich by being lazy, many people have gotten rich in spite of being lazy.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Real programmers don't need foreign keys!
My CodeProject Articles :: Our forgotten astronomic heritage :: My website.
"Sorry, buddy, but this mission counts on everyone being as silent as possible, and your farts are just too much of a wildcard." - Korra to Meelo, "Kuvira's Gambit" -
So to sum it all up it sounds like we have the perception that exorbitant cost of product should equal better coding standards or at least an upgrade to better technology. What's new? I am curious about one aspect though... there was mention of poor referential integrity. Are you saying that there is actually misshapen data like, for instance, orphaned records or data points stored in the wrong fields or invalid values (i.e. an invalid enum value)? That would be more alarming.
When I was a lot newer to programming and databases, I once wrote an application that maintained the referential integrity through the code. If I knew then what I know now :sigh:
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
When I was a lot newer to programming and databases, I once wrote an application that maintained the referential integrity through the code. If I knew then what I know now :sigh:
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
I unfortunately work with a legacy system that was written without FKs. The amount of crap data in this DB is enough to make angels cry. This is why I was curious. It's the classic thinking that you only need to write a DB for the front end's needs without considering that other systems may one day interact with it with their own idiosyncrasies (forget about devs going in and mussing things up directly in the tables).
-
Well, why don't we do it? There are certainly enough of us who can code, and enough with business knowledge/requirements. It's actually a project that's big enough for CP to handle. There aren't many that big. It would certainly be an opportunity to put feathers in a large number of caps.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
There are already a number of open source apps that could replace SAP. I would suggest finding your favorite and contributing.
-
Surely, I can't be the only person to go through bits of SAP and think, if they can sell this, then in tech you apparently can pretty much shrink wrap and sell a turd to people who don't know any better. The more I dig into SAP the more WTFs I see. For instance... SAP Business One 8.8 Administration system ADP1 table definitions[^] From this one table alone I can see 3 problems at least... archaic naming convention, using text fields for boolean logic, and not using an ENUM field or lookup table where appropriate. More if I try, and this isn't counting the fact there are no foreign keys in the database, some of the denormalized data I've seen, and some stored procs with unnecessarily needed hard coded values. :doh:
Jeremy Falcon
You're not the customer. What I've learned the hard way is that business doesn't care that if it's coded well, that's not their problem. What they care about is whether the software helps them solve a problem and ultimately whether it saves or makes them money. It's our job to convince them that good code saves and makes them money!
Idaho Edokpayi
-
Surely, I can't be the only person to go through bits of SAP and think, if they can sell this, then in tech you apparently can pretty much shrink wrap and sell a turd to people who don't know any better. The more I dig into SAP the more WTFs I see. For instance... SAP Business One 8.8 Administration system ADP1 table definitions[^] From this one table alone I can see 3 problems at least... archaic naming convention, using text fields for boolean logic, and not using an ENUM field or lookup table where appropriate. More if I try, and this isn't counting the fact there are no foreign keys in the database, some of the denormalized data I've seen, and some stored procs with unnecessarily needed hard coded values. :doh:
Jeremy Falcon
appropriately named SAP because it's for saps
-
Surely, I can't be the only person to go through bits of SAP and think, if they can sell this, then in tech you apparently can pretty much shrink wrap and sell a turd to people who don't know any better. The more I dig into SAP the more WTFs I see. For instance... SAP Business One 8.8 Administration system ADP1 table definitions[^] From this one table alone I can see 3 problems at least... archaic naming convention, using text fields for boolean logic, and not using an ENUM field or lookup table where appropriate. More if I try, and this isn't counting the fact there are no foreign keys in the database, some of the denormalized data I've seen, and some stored procs with unnecessarily needed hard coded values. :doh:
Jeremy Falcon
and it sucks!:mad::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
using text fields for boolean logic
To be fair, a boolean isn't part of the ISO specification (Oracle, for example, doesn't have a boolean data type). So you either use a numeric type and restrict it to 0 and 1 or you use a text type and restrict it to Y and N. I've seen the Y/N a lot (although I don't agree with it). At least be glad they documented it properly! What's more important, the average user will never see any of this. What matters to them is that it works and gives them the functionality they need and somehow it does. They don't care about your petty programmer problems like casting Y/N to booleans and keeping your data consistent without foreign keys.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
At least SQL Server does have a bit data type that can be set to 1 or 0 which is closer to boolean.
No matter where you go, there you are...~?~
-
appropriately named SAP because it's for saps
:-D
Jeremy Falcon
-
and it sucks!:mad::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
:-D
Jeremy Falcon
-
SAP gets into a company through the management board (CEO/CIO). Non technical people worried about their seat in the company - not the company itself. Their goal is to implement a system that will work - they won't take riscs with new IT companies/technologies. If the projects fails they loose their pretty seat in the company... With SAP they cannot go wrong. It'll work eventually, slow & expensive, but it'll work and they'll keep their seat. After the implementation the saying is that everything works great, because nobody has the guts to admit that they spend X miliions for a piece of crap..
You sir, hit the nail on the head.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
using text fields for boolean logic
To be fair, a boolean isn't part of the ISO specification (Oracle, for example, doesn't have a boolean data type). So you either use a numeric type and restrict it to 0 and 1 or you use a text type and restrict it to Y and N. I've seen the Y/N a lot (although I don't agree with it). At least be glad they documented it properly! What's more important, the average user will never see any of this. What matters to them is that it works and gives them the functionality they need and somehow it does. They don't care about your petty programmer problems like casting Y/N to booleans and keeping your data consistent without foreign keys.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Sander, we're all professionals here. No need to point out the obvious about it not being an ISO standard. However, it doesn't mean one shouldn't follow common best practices. I can list a handful of reasons why doing what they did is a bad idea for booleans, and any DBA worth his/her weight could too. I choose not to state the obvious however, unless it's asked. Btw, the sky is blue. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
From this one table alone I can see 3 problems at least... archaic naming convention, using text fields for boolean logic, and not using an ENUM field or lookup table where appropriate
archaic naming convention: it amazes me people see another's naming/coding style and label that as bad/problem, it's not an issue - what next, pick on people who have different skin color? using text fields for boolean: as others pointed out bool is not ISO, so not portable. SAP can use different underlying databases, and supports older DB versions of even those vendors that have those features. and not using an ENUM field or lookup table: well this is just a combination of the above two points. So no, your arguments that their code is bad is just simply 100% wrong. And so you think could do it better: will it work when rolled out to thousands of live enterprise sites, some of which have older systems/databases... THIS is why SAP make so much money (and they also don't employ bragging know-it-all smart asses like yourself because you don't get it.)
Sin tack ear lol Pressing the any key may be continuate
Try your pretty little online argument crap with someone less experienced and stop wasting my time. It may work on those that know no better. And while we are at it, you use too many commas. What's next, you're a child killer?
Jeremy Falcon
-
You're not the customer. What I've learned the hard way is that business doesn't care that if it's coded well, that's not their problem. What they care about is whether the software helps them solve a problem and ultimately whether it saves or makes them money. It's our job to convince them that good code saves and makes them money!
Idaho Edokpayi
You are correct sir. It just took me for a surprise after being exposed to it is all. I totally agree with you however.
Jeremy Falcon
-
So to sum it all up it sounds like we have the perception that exorbitant cost of product should equal better coding standards or at least an upgrade to better technology. What's new? I am curious about one aspect though... there was mention of poor referential integrity. Are you saying that there is actually misshapen data like, for instance, orphaned records or data points stored in the wrong fields or invalid values (i.e. an invalid enum value)? That would be more alarming.
Ed Bouras wrote:
So to sum it all up it sounds like we have the perception that exorbitant cost of product should equal better coding standards or at least an upgrade to better technology. What's new?
Touché! :laugh:
Ed Bouras wrote:
I am curious about one aspect though... there was mention of poor referential integrity. Are you saying that there is actually misshapen data like, for instance, orphaned records or data points stored in the wrong fields or invalid values (i.e. an invalid enum value)?
None that I've noticed yet. So I assume (hope) SAP helps enforce it, but there are no such foreign keys in the DB to help enforce it.
Ed Bouras wrote:
That would be more alarming.
Finally, someone with experience talking. You're correct. Seeing the lack of foreign keys was what started this whole jaw dropping thing actually. It just went from there.
Jeremy Falcon
