Comment On We Use BobX

Christian’s first day at his new job started out just like many others in the professional IT world. [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5Next »

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:03 • by pluma (unregistered)
SECOND!

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:06 • by The Nerve (unregistered)
The creator of Hibernate and it's bastard child HQL admitted that he created a whole new way to query because he couldn't understand and couldn't be bothered to learn SQL. Something tells me that BobX was created with the same premise.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:11 • by Guest (unregistered)
To me it sounds like "bob" simply tries to make sure he won't be loosing his stream of income any time soon ...

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:15 • by Burpy (unregistered)
Why do 80% of all ERPs think they're worth their own home made language???

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:16 • by frits
I find all you BobX haters so frusterating. I mean, it's just a tool like Java, PHP, or C#. The real value is in getting the job done. And if I can do it using BobX, well screw you and good for me.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:17 • by Steve The Cynic
OK, the in-house language is a serious WTF, both in the fact that they have one and in its specific nature. The fact that Christian didn't ask about the server platform at interview time is a personal WTF that is nobody's fault but his.

The supermega WTF, however, is running all your company's IT systems on infrastructure owned by a contractor that nobody has ever met.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:20 • by sui (unregistered)
A parser written in a parser


Wouldn't surprise me if BobX is only a abstraction layer of the php smarty template engine.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:25 • by ObiWayneKenobi
I love how there's no company in the world that can use an COTS ERP system, but MUST create one in-house to deal with such complex tasks as tracking customers, or orders, or processing invoices.

I often wonder if the development "team" just feeds management this line of bullshit to be able to spend months re-inventing the wheel instead of buying something customizable.

And, you have to love the "self-proclaimed genius programmer doesn't like Feature X of Language Y, so he creates his own abstraction language that cons the entire company into using it". I cannot think of ANYONE sane in the real world who would willingly take a job working with some obscure language that is only used by one company in the entire world. Unless you plan on never leaving that company, what benefit do you gain?

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:30 • by MP (Real) (unregistered)
This just makes me want to cry.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:33 • by bl@h (unregistered)
I call shenanigans, no company would do this.

Or would they?

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:35 • by James (unregistered)
To be fair, the server could have been compromised because of poor PHP code :)

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:37 • by One of the IT Crowd (unregistered)
316294 in reply to 316292
Anyone else suspect that Bob == Brian ?

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:43 • by DeGustibusNonDisputandumEst (unregistered)
316295 in reply to 316292
Maybe you should ask this guy: http://bobx.co.nz/

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:43 • by BobB
I program in BobB, it's just like programming in B only simpler!

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:44 • by Keloran (unregistered)
BobX aka Smarty, hmm sounds too familar to me, i wonder if i ever worked at that company

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:44 • by Corey (unregistered)
I used to work for a company that used BobX ~2003, only by that point it was already called ColdFusion.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:46 • by Drew (unregistered)
Did anyone else misread the title and expect a article about a new database type that was specifically for XML? I'm imagining a whole relational database made up of nothing but XML Blob columns...

...I scared myself.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:48 • by The Nerve (unregistered)
I'm glad Christian got hammered. He's not a team player. Too many times, you've got developers going rogue writing code that no one else knows how to maintain. The next thing you know, Christian would have been converting massive parts of the system to non-BobX code. Maybe he would have read a book on Java over the weekend and started writing Java Beans and JSF. Then that wouldn't be enough for him and he would start with Groovy.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:51 • by AnonymousX (unregistered)
This story can't possibly be true, it's far too ridiculous

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:54 • by NotBob (unregistered)
We had a guy who developed a rather similar web-page-from-database-generating "language", circa 1995. As an alternative to hand-coded C/C++ applications it was great (for its time), but it rapidly fell into disuse when ASP came along

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:57 • by Alekz (unregistered)
Looks like custom tag libraries for JEE apps?

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:59 • by My Name Is Missing (unregistered)
It's clear to me that Bob is a Terrorist.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 09:59 • by NC (unregistered)
316305 in reply to 316298
Corey:
I used to work for a company that used BobX ~2003, only by that point it was already called ColdFusion.


Hah, beaten to it. When the sample code was shown the first thing I thought was that BobX was code for ColdFusion.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:01 • by Anon (unregistered)
Hah! So now we know what TDWTF forum system was written in.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:02 • by Maskime (unregistered)
It does look like ColdFusion.

To me Bob is friend with Brian and this was their way to be sure to have a regular income...
'Cause the guy can not ask for a PHP developper in the first place if he doesn't know that the whole stuff is working with that in background...

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:03 • by operagost
SpectateSwamp has a potential business partner.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:03 • by icebrain (unregistered)
I like BobX [NSFW].

On a serious note, that HTML tag-like system is used in WACT, but only in templates, where is fits.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:05 • by Bogolese (unregistered)
All your base are belong to us

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:06 • by Buzz Killington (unregistered)
Definitely thought it was Coldfusion too.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:09 • by Corey (unregistered)
316312 in reply to 316301
[quote="AnonymousX"]This story can't possibly be true, it's far too ridiculous[/quote]

Is it? Is it???? I humbly refer you to http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/09/has-joel-spolsky-jumped-the-shark.html

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:09 • by Zaratustra (unregistered)
"I didn't hack the server, I xbobhacked the server."

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:13 • by toth

<xbobif condition="amount <= 12" >
...Some HTML here...
<xbobendif>


That's not an XML end tag. Or an XML attribute. So BobX is XML minus well-formed document checking. Nice.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:13 • by Jon (unregistered)
... and then Bob went on to develop Apache Ant.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:18 • by Aaron
316316 in reply to 316288
ObiWayneKenobi:
I love how there's no company in the world that can use an COTS ERP system, but MUST create one in-house to deal with such complex tasks as tracking customers, or orders, or processing invoices.

Wait, I'm confused. If all a company needs to do is process a few invoices then why should they spend a zillion dollars on a fancy-pants ERP system?

I think that the cost-benefit ratio of ERP, CRM, ESB and all that other crap tends to follow an inverted parabolic curve. There's a happy medium in there somewhere when it makes sense - you're running a big company with hundreds of thousands of customers and are still working off Excel spreadsheets and access databases. Definitely, buy an ERP. But if your company is small or has a very simple/straightforward process, it's far less expensive to get a good developer to blast something out in 2-4 weeks. On the other hand, if your process has so many twists and turns that you can't even draw up a legible flow chart, all of that "customization" essentially becomes custom development anyway and you're just pissing away money.

OK, so there's probably little to no justification for creating an entire in-house templating language just to squirt out a few invoices. I'm not saying that this particular story is a good example of a rational cost-benefit analysis or sound development practices. But come on, almost every off-the-shelf TLA that's designed to be "customized" is a bottomless pit of expense and despair. Most companies would be justified in avoiding them.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:21 • by Daniel (unregistered)
Not only does the syntax look similar to ColdFusion, but the implementation is similar. ColdFusion is implemented as a Java Servlet so it's an interpreter running in a java byte code interpreter which is just as bad.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:21 • by Box (unregistered)
I switched to Java now

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:23 • by Jon Kiji (unregistered)
316319 in reply to 316285
frits:
I find all you BobX haters so frusterating. I mean, it's just a tool like Java, PHP, or C#. The real value is in getting the job done. And if I can do it using BobX, well screw you and good for me.


I agree, I code in JonX which is a layer on top of basic to make it strcutured like ASM with Python-like objects and all of this poured in a neat XML layout.

It takes only 4 days to code a very decent 'Hello, world!', it gets the job done alright. Unfortunately I cannot get anyone to hire me, something to do with costs or something.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:23 • by Anonymously Yours (unregistered)
I can't help but notice BobX looks suspiciously like the hell that is ColdFusion.

<xbobloop statement="AssistantName" >

<xbobprint> .. write table content here .. <xbobprint>
<xbobendloop>


... in CF would be...

<cfloop query="QueryName" >

<cfoutput> .. write table content here .. </cfoutput>
</cfloop>

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:27 • by Balentius (unregistered)
316321 in reply to 316288
ObiWayneKenobi:
I love how there's no company in the world that can use an COTS ERP system, but MUST create one in-house to deal with such complex tasks as tracking customers, or orders, or processing invoices.

I often wonder if the development "team" just feeds management this line of bullshit to be able to spend months re-inventing the wheel instead of buying something customizable.

One problem I've seen (at two companies now, so it's a trend - right??? :) ) is that it starts off as a small company, and they do stuff with Excel. Then, they get larger, and eventually realize that Excel isn't a great application for this sort of thing, and someone generates a small program to do the same functions, plus one or two extras.
At that point, it is "the system", and it now becomes difficult to remove. Instead, more and more gets bolted on to it, and eventually you end up with a monster that takes a large amount of time to make the smallest changes. However, you can't replace it, because it now controls everything but the coffee pot (probably because that hasn't been requested yet...)
So, when they go to look at a "professional" system, they see that it costs a ridiculous amount of money, to do only some of the same things that the existing system does.

No evil involved here, just legacy code and tightwad management. (Yes, the programmers at the previous company I worked at TRIED to get a new system, but were told that it was too expensive.)

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:39 • by unwesen (unregistered)
Except for the "implemented in PHP" bit, it sounds a bit like what I had to deal with in a previous job. I had hoped I was the only one.

This one wasn't implemented in PHP, but a real Apache module. The scripting language had quirks like switch statements nested in if statements would work, but not if statements inside switch statements. Or vice versa, I forgot.

It had a module subsystem - really quite useful. But the inventor of the scripting language didn't really think that anything but strings or integers would be passed to and from modules. So as a later addition, they hacked the module code to pass complex objects... internally, object pointers would be serialized to hexadecimal string representations and passed as strings, and then deserialized and dereferenced on the other side.

Yep. Any parameter starting with "0x" followed by hexadecimal digits would get let you overwrite that memory location.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:44 • by zdux (unregistered)
is there a bobx.Net ?
I like xml and pain

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:46 • by ReallyCalledBob (unregistered)
316326 in reply to 316320
Actually it would be:

<cfoutput query="queryName">

#TableContent#
</cfoutput>

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 10:58 • by Amtep (unregistered)
Now why didn't Christian just write a PHP to BobX compiler? That would have saved him so much trouble.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:00 • by AWKScooby (unregistered)
Sun's Identity Manager (now called Oracle Waveset) has their own version of Bobx -- Xpress. It's an object-oriented LISP derivative, that's wrapped up in XML, and interpreted in Java.

x += 10 would be written as:

<add> <ref>x</ref> <i>10</i> </add>

But hey, they get to put a check mark on the box next to XML...

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:04 • by Skilldrick (unregistered)
Don't you mean "Might as well be brainf*ck"? I assume you're talking about the language:

>+++++++++[<+++++++++++++>-]<+.-------------.+++..-------.++++++++++++++.>++++++[<----------->-]<-.+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++[<++++++++>-]<+.++.--.>++++++[<---------->-]<+.>+++++++[<++++++++>-]<.+++.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:06 • by Bert (unregistered)
TRWTF is PHP.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:14 • by Cailin Coilleach (unregistered)
316332 in reply to 316283
Guest:
To me it sounds like "bob" simply tries to make sure he won't be loosing his stream of income any time soon ...

++

Sounds to me like this Bob's a fscking smart guy!

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:14 • by da Doctah
316333 in reply to 316327
Amtep:
Now why didn't Christian just write a PHP to BobX compiler? That would have saved him so much trouble.


Better still, develop "ChristianY", which is implemented in BobX. And then leverage it to force out Bob....

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:22 • by Kyle Z. (unregistered)
316334 in reply to 316294
One of the IT Crowd:
Anyone else suspect that Bob == Brian ?


Totally.

Re: We Use BobX

2010-08-03 11:24 • by Bryan The K (unregistered)
316336 in reply to 316334
Kyle Z.:
One of the IT Crowd:
Anyone else suspect that Bob == Brian ?


Totally.


Has anyone ever seen Bob and Brian in the same room together? It's kind of like Batman and Bruce Wayne.

« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5Next »

Add Comment