Top note: I missed this whole thread, being on the east coast of the US, and it came in overnight. Always Learning wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 05:16 -0700, Craig White wrote: <snip> >> You would likely use a flash or google charts implementation these days >> to generate graphs as there are all sorts of libraries that make this >> dead simple. > > No Flash. It is a known security danger and stores, without the user's Flash, for reports? That's like the VeryLargeCorporate website I saw a few years ago, that had a bloody FLASH VIDEO on the search page for jobs, with some actress (or HR person) telling me about their "hot jobs" (gee, I'm know nothing about that field, but it's Hot, so I think I'll apply!!!) Not good enough for Hollywood or the ad agencies, so they want to make video for NO good reason. Style over content. > >> Framework is the core of any application. It's well known terminology >> for anyone who has done software development... >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework > > Untrue. The 'framework' seems like a nightmare .... I agree. Why use a framework when you just need to know what library functions to call. This is, in fact, a part of my rant, which I will someday write as a paper, on the failure of OOP (Jan, 1994: IEEE Spectrum cover, where OOP was *literally* presented as the silver bullet to the software backlog). In short: you want a clipping from Godzilla's toenail, and, using OOP and frameworks, you call in Godzilla, and put a frame around his (her?) toenail. Looking up the word "bloatware" is left as an exercise for the reader. <snip> > "... Software frameworks rely on the Hollywood Principle: "Don't call > us, we'll call you."[12] This means that the user-defined classes (for > example, new subclasses), receive messages from the predefined framework > classes. Developers usually handle this by implementing superclass > abstract methods." > > NO THANKS. Frameworks is certainly not for me. It seems like a gigantic > and over-complicated time-waster. Ah, yes. About 5 years ago, I was teaching myself java, and using, um, swing? struts? I forget, and trying to get information out of a whatsit that controlled a button was like trying to scratch your ear by reaching between your legs. IIRC, I had to define a bloody *global* to get info out, which violates *every* part of OOP, and even good programming. > >> If you don't adopt an existing framework, then you have to create your >> own framework as your application develops sucking an inordinate amount >> of time and given to endless refactoring as your application evolves. > > Disagree. 'Keep it Simple' is my preference. Don't complicate things. Right. Write a main line, add stubs, put library calls in stubs. Unless you write spaghetti code, you're not talking more than, say, 100 lines of main line. So, how's that "an inordinate amount of time" creating a framework? You do have to sit and think, first.... <snip> > I have 44 years computer programming experience. I have seen enormous Beat me - I "only" started doing it for a living in 1980 (after two years of classes). <snip> mark, KISS