Similar to the DBMS (observation 1) it was real simple to learn the application development tools in the early nineties. All it took was one weekend of reading the documentation and trying out the software tools. In the Oracle scene, Forms 2.0 was really not a too difficult tool. Steve Muench (as far as I know the "inventor" of the Forms product) did a real good job. Of course, it would take a year or two to realize how good the Forms product really was: i.e. what it did for you, so you did not have to worry about that (that = locking, preventing lost-updates, generating insert/update/delete statements, etc.).
Outside the Oracle tools scene you could also opt for "third generation languages" in those days. Turbo Pascal, Lattice C, Fortran and the likes. Combined with Oracle pre compilers, which gave you the ability to embed SQL inside the code, they would typically offer the possibility to implement performant batch-processes.
Then, in the early/mid nineties when (anonymous) PL/SQL was introduced in the database (oracle version 6) Steve gave us Forms 3.0. A huge leap forwards. It also had a local PL/SQL engine. The reference guide for 3.0 was more than twice as thick as the guide for 2.0 or 2.3. Do you see the resemblance with observation 1? It would take a few weeks to become really productive with this tool.
A few years later, moving from character-mode to GUI-mode, (the infamous early releases of) Forms 4.0 was (were) brought to us by Oracle. Which really took till Forms 4.5 to become stable. At this time other (third party) tools, such as Powerbuilder, Uniface, and maybe two or three others that I cannot remember anymore, were "hot" also.
By now the Forms product had reached a level of complexity where using Forms "generators" really became the way to build applications. Generators were already available in the char-mode era (with Forms 3.0). I forgot what the product was called. I think it was Oracle Case 5.0.
These generators added yet another level of complexity to the tool-stack that you, the developer, had to master, in order to deliver database applications. This however was solved by add-on utilities (headstart). Which again just added more complexity, if you ask me. Since you couldn't purge your Forms (builder, design-time) knowledge. A 100% generation was unrealistic, unless you were the actual developer of the headstart toolset. The majority of the projects always required "post-generation" development. And sometimes a lot so. Furthermore there was the wholy grail of keeping the forms re-generate-able. Only very, very, few projects managed to achieve that (and at a very high cost).
I used to be "all round". An application developer more than a DBA. I did both. But I decided to quit being a developer when Case Generator (later called Designer/2000 etc.) became the way to build apps, and move over to the DBA field. I knew forms inside-out, and was able to kick out screens really fast: I did not see how these "generators" were making my job easier. Of course I was already building database applications in a (pre-version-of-the) Helsinki approach.
The developer toolstack then moved to Forms6.0 and Forms6i: webforms. An applet running in your browser, dealing with the (client/server) forms. Obviously this was going nowhere...
Hence, here came J2EE...
Apart from the fact that it was way back to writing low-level code again, it was also code that was hard, no, really very hard, to read and thus, hard-like to maintain.
So this is observation 4:
The ratio of "required knowledge investment" versus "produced output" for developers is way off the scale nowadays. For the more young people out there reading this blog: you have no idea with how little (compared to now) technological knowledge we were able to build database applications in the past. I also suspect that you find it very hard to keep up with, and to have broad and deep knowledge of, todays "tools" that you are supposed to use when building these kind of (web) apps. I far from envy you. It must be horrific.
There is no way one person can grasp all the technological knowledge that is required to build these kind of applications today. This is why development teams now always consist of several (different) specialists. And of course one "architect". The person to mediate and achieve consensus between all involved specialists. In my presentation I call the architect the person to keep TPTAWTSHHTF (*) away.
This is the last observation I wanted to point out.
In summary, here are all four observations:
- The DBMS is finally mature, hence we-do-not-use it anymore.
- We still develop UFI's, but in a lot more complex manner.
- There is an ongoing YAFET technology explosion.
- The investment required for developers to become productive, has gone through the roof.
First we need to spend some time on J(2)EE.
(*: The Person That Arrives When The Shit Has Hit The Fan)
I think I'll change my job designation to TPTAWTSHHTFReplyDelete
Toon, I also have seen the march of "progress" over the last 20 years.ReplyDelete
I feel as you do about application development: it has gotten out of control.
Several years ago I decided to stick with DBA work, and have not regretted that decision.
(At one time I did application development)
I do regret the now common sentiment among developers that the database is simply a place to store rows in a poorly designed data schema.
Even so, I would still rather be a DBA than a developer.
Sorry but I find your claim that "the DBMS is finally mature" outright ludicrous.
Support for declarative constraints is nowhere. Support for temporal data is nowhere, well, abstraction made of that thing called TSQL, which may be considered a questionable at any rate.
The DBMS hardly does antything more for us than it did in the 60's. DATA-wise, that is, of course.