Replies

I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit.

You are correct. Coding the business logic in the SQL Server stored procedures took a good part of the time. For the record it is an investment reporting application - a lot of crosstabulation and summarization. Some of the logic came from a legacy MS Access reporting system, other parts had to be written from scratch.

Total application development time: 8 weeks.

Total traditional ASP coding time: About 1 week.

Total ASP.NET conversion time: 8 hours.

Total time spent on three upgrades since: About 1 hour.

The decision to build a 2-tier application was a deliberate part of the design, as a 3-tier architecture would have been overkill for this project. Scalability was not a design consideration - any growth in the database size will be overwhelmed by future `increases in hardware speed.

The typical run time for the set of eight SQL Server stored procedures kicked off by ASP.NET is about 10 seconds. Maybe if I had used Java and an application server it would run in 5 seconds. Hey, a 50% increase! A new benchmark for Oracle's ads...LOL!

Now y'all can argue from a coherent set of specs...

You know he's going to think we worked this out in Freepmail. Investment stuff, a little hairy but nothing viscious. That's about how I was seeing it. DB design and execution are the important part, that's the actual data, fronts aren't too hard. And of course crunching number back in SQL is the right answer, if only because that's probably a bigger computer than the box the front end is working on.

It'll be interesting to see what he says now that we actually have enough info to be throwing out some estimates.

Total traditional ASP coding time: About 1 week.
Total ASP.NET conversion time: 8 hours.

And Java develops as fast as ASP.NET.

I am sorry, I apparently did misunderstand your original post #17 which said, "I had an application that took me eight weeks to code and test in ASP. Converting it to ASP.NET took eight hours."

So apparently what took one week to code in ASP took 8 hours to convert? Do I understand that correctly?

So unless I'm mistaken, the thing you got angry at me about is still true, yes?

ASP.NET develops at about the same speed as Java.

So it could have been done faster in Java (or ASP.NET) to begin with, but using Java wasn't a choice because you're an "MS-only" shop?

I don't understand something, and I honestly would like to know -- why do MS-only people get so angry whenever someone even suggests that doing it in Java might have been faster, or cheaper?