|
He has a point TBH. You can't "migrate" a col\row based database like Access to an hierarchical one like Mongo. Also it's not just the DB but the things that use it....they will need rewritten and retested. Also anyone who says Mongo is easier to maintain than Access would probably get fired on the spot if I had my way. And Mongo more secure? Didn't a whole bunch of companies get their data hacked because Mongo's default security is "off" so anyone can trawl the net for open ports and get what they want?
This sounds like fresh-out-of-uni idealism. You have to respect that in the real world we do have ties to old systems and things are done a certain way for a reason, and it's unlikely you'll appreciate that if it's your first day on the job.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: a col\row based database like Access to an hierarchical one like Mongo
Are you suggesting that Access is not a hierarchical db? 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why? You can create relationships between tables in Access.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Relationships don't make something hierarchical. In Access if you have Order and OrderItem they are two different tables and if you want the Order you do a look-up on Order and if you want the OrderItem you do another lookup using OrderID as a where filter. They are separate buckets of info. With Mongo the data is stored in a hierarchal manner. So once you find the Order, that order has a collection of OrderItems directly inside it.
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess she was told it was a dot net SQL environment they were working in?
|
|
|
|
|
Tell her we all said, "Welcome to the real world."
She needs to just observe and learn the culture for a while before telling the existing employees that they are doing everything "wrong".
I still have to delve into Delphi 6 (circa 2000) code that uses Paradox as the database for crying out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
since when do employers really listen to their employees, particularly a newbie vs. some old coot that's been there way too long (and worse still may be a friend of the boss / director.)
wait a while till the boss knows you're both human doing OK at your job, once that traction achieved suggest they need to review/upgrade before their tech doesn't fit the real word (interface etc.) Suggest they retain consultants to do a full review because they are at risk of loosing a lot of business if they don't upgrade to match their supply/sales chains.
sometimes they really do have to pay to accept the truth, whereas if it's just you saying it even 10 years on the old coot's still always going to have the upper hand. (unless sleeping with the boss - but no, don't do that: it never ends well.)
Format Success.
Welcome to your new signa&*(gD@@@ ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif) @@@@@@*@x@@
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: Suggest they retain consultants to do a full review because they are at risk of loosing a lot of business if they don't upgrade to match their supply/sales chains.
Excluding those where the the sale involved a product and the customer wanted a specific database, I have never seen any customer care what database the company was using.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that to point I agree. Devs tend to always come off as treating people like they are stupid. So maybe it was the way she did it. Who knows, we weren't there. But you have a good point.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: She needs to just observe and learn the culture for a while before telling the existing employees that they are doing everything "wrong".
My reaction as well. Your second day is not the one to argue with the coxswain over the type of oars. Just get in the damned boat and row!
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
And to sum up this thread  and a note to all you young whippersnappers, may you be blessed by your energy and idealism:
If you are good, learn some things, and don't do anything exceptionally stupid, you may one day be "that old coot".
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, just trying to find an analogy here.
Let's say a new hire is assigned to add a new form to a php web site. While being introduced to the web site code, the new hire explains how stupid PHP is and the web site should be rewritten using Java Spring MVC hosted on a Web Sphere application server and provides examples from an tutorial googled during the session.
That is how I see it, am I doing it wrong?
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
On your second day? Yep, you are doing it wrong. That is NOT the way to get ahead. You have to earn some trust and respect before you go trying to change the world and you shouldn't use the word stupid. This is the voice of experience speaking. I had to go to sensitivity training because I called something stupid, even though it was contrary to the goals of my project and company, and it was being pushed for by a consultant.
|
|
|
|
|
When I hear about sensitivity training, I always picture something like this
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Termi Nater wrote: That is how I see it, am I doing it wrong?
Yes.
Where in your statement are you taking into account the large cost of doing that?
Companies do not get paid in technology. They get paid in money. If it costs then it subtracts from income.
So where does your solution add to the income of the company?
Termi Nater wrote: While being introduced to the web site code, the new hire explains how stupid PHP
And I should note also that I have not seen any evidence that currently PHP is choice that will make a company suffer. PHP has been around for a while and is still maintaining its market share.
Note that doesn't mean it cannot be implemented badly but that is true for any technology.
And just to be clear I don't do PHP.
|
|
|
|
|
S Houghtelin wrote: So she tried showing him some examples of how much easier it would be to maintain and update the tables
Did she also demonstrate how much the migration would cost, how much the QA would cost, and as applicable how much it would cost to redo all of the other code that accessed the database and QA for that as well?
And what about the retraining costs?
|
|
|
|
|
Forgetting/ignoring training costs is all too common with engineers.
(Many years ago, the VP of training at a prospective customer gave me a cost and logistics breakdown of retraining for even the simplest UI change. It was more than I expected. It also explains one reason the company chose not to switch vendors.)
|
|
|
|
|
Technology aside, I've experienced that kind of response with coworkers. There isn't much that you can do, especially if you're their lead and on probation. The best thing for her is to suck it up and see how things unravel. If she goes to work somewhere else as a full-time employee, she might experience the same thing over again; you never know, unless you try.
|
|
|
|
|
Can't put my finger on it, but it feels related to your sig somehow .
|
|
|
|
|
Her solution is Mongo or Apache?
|
|
|
|
|
Our company has grown a lot the last couple of years, so we have had many new employees, many directly from university. At least two out of three come with great ideas how they shall "save" our company, really great and successful (... but we are, already!). Each of them has his own way of how tools and working methods and plans should be drastically changed, if we are to prosper and grow.
We couldn't possibly switch programming languages or project management tools or build systems or version control systems every time some new employee comes with this great revolutionary new tool. Even changing horses every time our technical university jumps onto some new academic fad... Those revolutionary new ways are almost always academic fads, and I am surprised/disappointed how much a university can make quite smart university students into evangelists for a single belief without teaching them anything about alternative ways, and essentially teaching them "This is The Answer" without telling them WHY this is the answer. You wouldn't believe what even university Masters can present as if they were laws of nature - such as individual packet routing in networks, the necessity of parenthesizing conditions in programming languages, or the obviousness of case significance in identifiers. (I could list a few dozen other examples as well.)
So when some new employee brings forth a new revolutionary tool or method: Give him/her some time to analyze the needs of the company, make a critical evalation of how the current tool satisifies the needs, how the new proposed tool satisifies the needs, identifying and quantifying the benefits of a switch, and the cost of a switch. Make the new employee write this down as a change proposal for older employees to evaluate.
We have done that a couple times, when the new employee withdrew the proposal quite rapidly when met with counterarguments and real figures for the cost of change. (That is where they usually fail, believing that replacing a basic tool is no more difficult in a 300 man company with a few hundred customer relations as it was in a four-students group work with no legacy ties and no obligations after the report is handed in to the professor for evaluation.)
True enough: Sometimes, we could be more open to change, but still, changes should be justified. We have also had cases where new employees have continued to insist on changes, we have "given in" and after a while realized that the claimed benefits were not gained. The only positive result of spending a lot of resources on the change is that our tools are more in step with academic fads. And: Fads are fads.
Other times, we turn down proposals, but later pick them up - either because our needs have changed or the proposal has changed: One guy insisted about three years ago that Docker was the right thing - and that a Windows version had been made available. Today, the Windows version is beginning to shape up. (But it requires Windows 10, which makes it unavailable on about half of our machines - we still haven't got Win10 drivers for all our test equipment.)
I am sure that if your friend writes down an analysis of the costs and benefits of her proposal, showing it to be a significant gain to the company, and she justifies it with non-rebuttable arguments that even the oldtimers understand are good ones, then I am sure that her analysis will be positively received.
|
|
|
|
|
[^]
And then what happened?
modified 6-Oct-17 6:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
GKP1992 wrote: And then what happened?
I closed the page saying "404 - page not found".
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
