Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
User Journal

Journal Chacham's Journal: Mini-Rant: Silly "standards" on schema (2) 4

Grr... I was aksed to figure out how something is done in the DB for a project that noone is really in control of.

So, identify two objects, and find their joins. Well, because of those silly standards i haven't the slightest idea which TABLE does what. It doesn't make anything easier that the same acronyms are used. Imagine having ITEM stand for both "item" and "itemize", based on context, which are the two letters that appear before it.

Worse even because the pseudo PK is the same in the master TABLE and all other TABLEs, i have no idea which actually is the master TABLE for that object!

These people are insane. If everyone did their own thing, it'd be easier to understand. It's not like there are two good ways of doing things and they chose one, there was a severly constrained way of doing things a decade or two ago, and these idiots haven't realized they are out of the stone age. Innovation is seen as disrupting things so noone else will understand. What about *me* right *now*, i don't understand it now! I already had to ask other for help to find arcane names for objects, and waste time mangling my perfectly clear nomenclature, just so i can move on soon, and have the new person--whom i am using the standards for--not be able to understand anything and start the vicious cycle over again.

I'd cry, but they're not worth the tears.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mini-Rant: Silly "standards" on schema (2)

Comments Filter:

Programmers used to batch environments may find it hard to live without giant listings; we would find it hard to use them. -- D.M. Ritchie