I dunno, I've never used it/been at a job that has (yet, hopefully), I've only taken a class on an early version of it, 2009 or 10ish. Which I believe was before what I'm guessing you revile â" "code first" â" and other such evil features, and, probably not coincidence, before it was considered a proper OR/M.

p.s. I just thought of a new term to hereby officially invent: data kiddie
It's someone who's just barely out of their 20's who is a (good) sysadmin and thought, gee, how hard could (adding to my repertoire) this database stuff be.

It looks like you meant to reply to someone else, who was evidently arguing that you only need to model the business logic. Which of course is only true when the data storage is trivial.

I know MS's ORM for .NET, Entity Framework, for example, supports calling MS SQL Server stored procedures. The DBA staff can and ought to be able organize the data however over-normalized their little naive hearts desire, as long as they map it to the interface for the next layer. (Just as in ASP.NET MVC the proper (not to mention more secure) way is to map the business objects to view model objects, for interfacing with the view.)

For simple CRUD applications, where there really is no interesting application logic to model, then that makes sense. This is what most of the apps are where I currently work. Just data input forms, essentially, and reports.

Then we had to make a kind of personnel scheduling app. I.e. non-trivial application logic, with all kinds of special conditions and rules. It's a house of cards, because it wasn't designed. It was just hacked, because of thinking like yours.

The problem with prototypes is that your bosses then order you to just add on to them to build the real system.

And big, up-front specification as a process can't keep up. Agile is a facing of reality, as ugly as it is, that waterfall denies.

15 years in, Agile has given us faster coding, but worse quality.

You mean worse quality than Waterfall when you don't count Waterfall's higher failure rate? Because I think I would factor those in as zeros in the quality dept.

Waterfall was flawed due to its overemphasis on architecture and underemphesis on business

We do Waterfall where I work, and I assure there's no architecture going on! To me Waterfall is an overemphasis on taking the customer's word for it on what he wants and an underemphesis on the realization that the customer actually doesn't know WTF he wants. (And in my experience, what he wants is only discovered/discoverable by showing him what turns out to be *not* what he wants.)

Lean cuts out inefficiency- at the cost of elegance and maintainability.

I thought lean thinking is cutting out waste and maximizing value to the customer. Unless it's known ahead of time that the piece of software is going to be a one-time/throw-away app, then some care towards avoiding wasteful inefficiency in future extensibility is valuable to the customer.

And I thought Devops was just non-developers wanting to feel important too. Just kidding. I thought Devops *is* your QA and sysadmins and security and CM and DBA's, getting in on Agile/applying it to their deployment stuff.

So to me, Agile is Waterfall split into minis of itself and iterated, Agile was inspired by Lean, and Devops is Agile for losers... er, I mean, non- application developer IT peeps.

Because they believe that it is the data storage that should be modeled, instead of the interaction of domain objects?

Thanks for the brain-dead response.

But I wasn't asking if it was good for government; I was asking if it was good for (all) workers.

In Oregon a rising minimum wage has increased consumption to the point of offsetting the job losses from a rising minimum wage?

And note that fewer jobs is the price of fairness; it's not fair that some have more than others, so more must be taken from them, with whatever downsides that result.

That sounds like a religious statement.

"You never criticized X during period Y, therefore Z is privileged"

Isn't that just a specific implementation of the more general case, of "if X, then you're not allowed free speech about Y", where X is anything they can think of?

TL;DR: I wouldn't let the resemblance to an argument there make you think that sound reasoning on things is a shared virtue. Any more than Democrat politicians throwing in an occasional accent from the hood means they have street cred.

"He entered the motorcycle hall of fame after he was already dead and he remains dead today."

And all this time I believed the motorcycle hall of fame had resurrecting power.

p.s. Congrats for posting a link to site that doesn't have a fucking popover for a change.

Maybe Mayhicko is de facto non- birthright citizenship. Either way, it certainly doesn't matter to me. It's strange they would use that -- a Left-wing tactic -- as "support" for a Right-wing position. When Rightism certainly isn't about relativism, or being overly concerned about others. I know I don't look to my neighbors to decide how my life should be, so why would I think America should take cues from other countries. Especially arbitrary categorizations of them; why on earth would I think that nations belonging to the "industrialized" community, to use you guys' lingo, should think and act the same.

p.s. Congrats on your frosty piss.