Re: There's got to be a better way

shimmyshack wrote:
On 26 Mar, 02:33, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
shimmyshack wrote:
On 25 Mar, 23:37, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
shimmyshack wrote:
On 25 Mar, 21:37, Mary Pegg <inva...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
shimmyshack wrote:
if (isset($c['s']['a5'])) echo htmlentities($c['s']['a1'])."<br>";
.
.
.
if (isset($c['s']['a5'])) echo htmlentities($c['s']['a5'])."<br>";
that's alot of work for sake of sticking with what _you_ find more
readable
So what you're really arguing in favour of is wrapping it up in a
function, which is what I've done. But the question is whether it's
worth creating a for loop to run through a1 to a5 rather than simply
calling each by name.
all the chages above and more are so simple with Rani's method. If you
No, they're simple if it's wrapped up in a function. Whether or not
a1 to a5 get generated by a for loop I've still got b, c, d, e, f (etc)
to deal with. NB I'm using these as symbols - in reality they are the
field names from a database, so no getting smart and suggesting that I
can generate b to f automagically. OTOH I could stick the field names
in an array and step through the array. This might be worth doing.
can't take good advice don't ask for it.
I know this is Usenet but you don't *have* to be rude and abrasive.
--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".
it's not rude or abrasive, to notice you don't take advice and say so,
perhaps a little bruusque though, and I apologise if I made you cross.
FYI, I work with annoyingly complex database tables whose structure
changes as my client changes their requirements, to stop this kind of
hard coded approach which started to cost me too much time, I use
DESCRIBE `tablename`, and SHOW FULL COLUMNS FROM `tablename` which can
then be used to get the comments, fieldnames etc... then using a reg
exp on bool enum varchar() int() and so on to get metadata about the
table which is then pumped into the application.
In this way you can use general methods to print and parse data
without ever having to hard code the fieldnames, you can use it to
dynamically generate forms etc...
Instead of repeatedly writing code to format output from the DB, you
just need a vlid link, and some form of instructions what your db
connection is to "get" and "output" and finally the output format -
preventing too much or too little from being drawn from the DB. You
only have to code this once, and after than it can be used everywhere
you need output. It might seem a little extreme to folks, I don't
know, but I find this approach saves time. The class which serves html
markup can end up being very complex but you can control things with a
couple of calls and an array.
PMJI, but then you aren't much of a programmer.
I've been doing SQL Database work for over 20 years now. I'll bet some
of the databases I've designed would make yours look puny - over 100
tables, over 1,500 columns, for instance. And mostly 3rd normal form.
And yes, these databases do change as customer requirements change. But
I deal with them.
Your problem is that the user actually *cares* about the contents of the
database. They don't. What they do care about is the *data* -
including the relationships. Whether data is contained in one table or
ten is not important.
You can give all the excuses you want for not taking good advice. But
the bottom line is - you haven't given any excuses we haven't heard
hundreds of times. And you aren't explaining a situation most of us
haven't run into multiple times. And we deal with it properly.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==================
I'm not sure what to make of that Jerry, but I wonder if my point was
clear enough. The idea is to write php classes which auto discover DB
structure, as does say phpmyadmin. The idea is to let the DB structure
be _independent_ of the php code, responding to changes within the DB
such as character encoding, field types, number of columns etc... so
that little or no hard coding and adjusting of the logic is needed,
just an adjustment - if any - to the "display" if one can call it that
- to config that prescribes the way the code interacts with the DB
tables.
I don't then mind how often changes are made to the DB structure,
which as you say always changes as the project grows and the
relationships become clearer, nor do I mind how often the tables are
split (pi$$ing contest avoided), provided a there exists a
data<~>query map.
ALways with programming it's bread and butter, reinventing the wheel
for each new app (even with OO)
forming the query, running it, getting the data, persisting it,
parsing, filtering, displaying and so on...
I wanted something a bit more like a fluent interface, more readable
and "semantic", in that it moves things on from having to write step
by step, and makes things a bit more fluid. I would be nice to get
eventually to a form where anyone could write in words what they
required; perhaps when chicken foot's reg exp parser comes up with
this ;)
I personally hate to see the type of hard coded stuff that gets banged
out, but it exists in the real world - of course.
You just don't get it, do you. The DB Structure is not important to the
client. The DB CONTENTS ARE!

For instance - in the case of an order entry system. Does the user want :

order_number product_number quantity

Or do they want:

Customer name
Order_number product_name quantity Price Total_Price

PhPMyAdmin is for administering a MySQL database. The user isn't
interested in the administration of the database. He/she is interested
in the contents. And not just one table, like above. Rather, he's
interested in the joining of at least three tables - maybe more.

Sure, I rewrite code each time I start a new project with a new
database. That's because every database is unique and has unique
requirements.

What you think would be nice really isn't realistic, other than for
simple database admin like PhPMyAdmin.

Programming is all about reinventing the wheel. For instance, almost
every PHP statement has been written at least once. Sure, the variable
names change, but that's about it. But it's how you put the statements
together that counts.

Same with databases. It's not about the access. And it's not about
database design.

It's about how things fit together to provide data in a format a person
can use.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstuck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==================

I think you have missed the point again Jerry; although I would say
that database design and access can be very important for large
projects for optimisation. I am only building on this exact point:


Nope, I didn't miss the point at all. The same is true if you only have a dozen columns across two tables.

It's about how things fit together to provide data in a format a person can use.

the rest is just a given. You are cross at someone but it isn't me.


Who say's I'm cross? I am getting tired of people claiming to be programmers who keep coming up with this garbage.

It can only be reiterated: although coding is about reinventing the
wheel, this is pointless, and will change into the future, becoming
more high level and looking and feeling less like C.
Finally resulting in code that looks like a sentence, and compiles to
be equivalent to today's stuff. Until the compilers get cleverer, the
wheel reinvention problem can be solved using clever code.


I've been hearing that "will change in the future" for the 40 years I've been programming. Hasn't happened yet, and isn't going to happen in the near future. Only the languages, architectures and tools change. But we're still writing code must like we did 40 years ago.

And COBOL was the try to get code that "looks like a sentence". That was around even when I was programming in the late 60's. Nothing new.

Your point
The DB Structure is not important to the client. The DB CONTENTS ARE!
can be widened, the client doesn't care about anything except
functionality on time to budget.
true but that implies fast writing of code, with less skills required
to write it and greater ease of maintainability. One of SQLs great
pluses is that it's not that hard to learn and it can read like a
sentence at the basic level.
The same can and will be true of a scripting lang like php.
The upshot is writing code independent of DB structure, independent of
markup requirements, which takes a config file, rather like Ant builds
an application, means less stress for you - the over worked wheel
reinventor, and less stress for the client, who likes rapid app dev.


No, that means writing code efficiently. And generally it takes MORE skills. Less skill means the code will not be as "clean" and will take longer to write. The result is virtually always a higher cost to the client.

You really don't understand a lot about programming in the real world. That's very obvious.

I dunno where we are arguing, unless your 20+yrs has blinded you to
the possibility of a world where Joe Bloggs back office boy can
program because Joe Blogg's dad the guru made a compiler that
understood english.

Try 40 years of programming. And sure, Joe Blogg can throw together code. I get big bucks straightening it out when he completely screws things up.

What got my goat was that printing statements out in googlicate was
just the kind of thing that causes problems into the future, while it
might compile to something similar to a judiciously chosen while loop,
it just feels rather intellectually lazy, no offence intended.


Or completely ignorant. Take your pick.

In the same way people argued against calculators I guess you can
still disagree. Calculators let anyone leapfrog the grunt work, and
start with the interesting Maths. The metphor is writing code once
that then let's the programmer get on with writing the app, rather
than reinventing the wheel and grinding out lines of the same old
code. Not everyone loves the destination as much as they do the
journey. oo deep


Sure. And a roller will make painting must faster. So why didn't Rembrandt use a roller?

Programming is grunt work. Good programming is creative.

Try a few years in a real programming job. Find out what it's really like. Right now you talk like a teenager who has read a PHP book and scanned a SQL book. But never done any real-world programming. Some hobby, maybe. But that's it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
==================
.