• Anone (unregistered) in reply to Booger
    Booger:
    I've seen lots of arguments about that on the internets, and I must say, I don't entirely degree. Clearly there is a use of 'Begs the Question' - and this is what people like you argue "What it means", but I'm gonna tread a dangerous line....

    Beg (v) = Ask Question (v) = question

    Begs the question can literally be used in the way that dgvid did. Doesn't matter that the phrase may have been used other way (or even may have been used to mean something totally different), the usage above is perfectly cromulent.

    No it isn't. To be correct english you need it to be begs for the question.

    'Begs the question' should be shot in both forms and so should 'raises the question' which is useless as a substitute because it throws out the emotiveness of 'beg'. Best I got is 'demands the question'. Any superior replacements?

  • Enders (unregistered)
    (Server) -> Objects -> XML String -> Zipped String -> DCOM Stack <- Zipped String <- XML String <- Objects <- (Client)

    Yo Dawg!

    I heard you like DCOM, so I put a XML in your ZIP so you can ZIP while you XML.

  • Enders (unregistered)

    Sorry, I had to say it.

    Been in my mind the whole time reading this and it needed to get out.

  • trtwtf (unregistered) in reply to Anone
    Anone:

    No it isn't. To be correct english you need it to be begs for the question.

    'Begs the question' should be shot in both forms and so should 'raises the question' which is useless as a substitute because it throws out the emotiveness of 'beg'. Best I got is 'demands the question'. Any superior replacements?

    I can understand walking away from the original sense. If you want to do that, just use "assumes the consequent" and you'll sound extra-clever. For the degraded sense, I haven't got anything on tap.

  • PRMan (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Anon:

    That might be an argument for using XML, but how does it justify using XML on top of DCOM?

    Maybe because you were told that the DCOM server might go away? Or perhaps the DCOM server wasn't the original server?

    Imagine,

    (1) There was a [whatever] server that transacted in XML. (2) The client was written to use XML to talk to [whatever] (written very poorly). (3) The [whatever] server went away and needed a replacement. (4) The new DCOM server was written to use XML so the client doesn't have to change.

    Not ideal, but no grand conspiracy needed.

    But then, without overly verbose prose, Alex's writings would usually end up being a single sentence.

    Think about it. Both servers are using DCOM. There's a 99% chance that it will forever be a Microsoft shop.

  • Joe I.T. Manager (unregistered)

    VB6...really?...still?...probably running on NT4?...really?...still?...WTF???

  • Alex (unregistered) in reply to Robert

    +1.

    Agree, design looks fine. And, we don't really know anything about the quality of the code because it was not mentioned.

    The real issue could have been the developer's aversion to study someone else's code to figure out how it works. Rather, they'd prefer (understandably) to write "clean" new code using the right design from the beginning. Which will be abandoned by the next developer, who will start all over again.

    Reading the code is much harder that writing it, and the poorly written code makes it even harder. But again, we don't know if the code quality was the culprit in this particular case.

  • Aloha Dano (unregistered) in reply to Joe I.T. Manager

    VB6? luxury. Some of our prodcution apps on Win XP are written in VB3.

Leave a comment on “Design for the Future”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article