Methods & Tools Software Development Magazine

Software Development Magazine - Project Management, Programming, Software Testing

 

Methods & Tools - News, Facts & Comments Edition - November 2001

*** Companies ***********************************************************

* SAP swings to Java

At the beginning of November, SAP, the giant German ERP software producer, announced that its new MySAP technology platform will integrate Sun's Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) software programming technology.

This is a new episode showing the coopetition (cooperation and competition) mode that influences moves of major software producers. SAP and Microsoft are cooperating to offer SAP on NT with SQL Server as a solution to decrease the fact that SAP software was often associated with an Oracle database, Oracle being a competitor of SAP in the ERP market. Java is a competitor of Microsoft's .NET environment, but now Microsoft is also an actor in the ERP market with the purchase of Great Plains, another company active in this area, and therefore a competitor of SAP. Like Microsoft removed Java Virtual Machine from its new XP OS to bother Sun, SAP has chosen Java to avoid giving a larger market to Microsoft. SAP has not completely left out .NET, because connections should be provided from MySAP to other programming technologies.

If this former paragraph seems complicated to you, I assume my responsibilities as editor... but the situation in itself is also complicated... :-]

* Database ups and downs

The recent quarterly reports from database vendors allow us to take a new look at this market. On the "looser" side we see Sybase (- 20% in licence fees from 2000) and Oracle (-8% in database sales). The "winners" are IBM which report growth of 19% and 36% in the last two quarters and Microsoft (+45%). Software AG also had good first nine months of 2001 with a solid growth its Adabas/Natural mainframe product and an increase of 41% for its Tamino XML server, even if this last product generate only 14.2 million Euro of revenues.

According to the Gartner Group, Oracle is still the indiscussed leader with a 34% market share for the global market and a 66% market share for the Unix segment. This comfortable number one position has not helped Oracle to attenuate its traditional arrogance... With time, the domination of Oracle has however decreased. With the acquisition of Informix, IBM has showed its intention to fight in the Unix area. Microsoft has gained the same market share level than Oracle in the Windows/NT operating systems. Even if Oracle has narrowed the pricing gap with IBM and Microsoft, the premium requested by Oracle will be an important influence to close sales in this weakening economy. The trends mentioned above will surely continue and lead to a more balanced market share distribution between Oracle, Microsoft and IBM. We think this is a good thing for buyers, as this should increase the importance of customer relationship in the vendors' attitude.

*** Numbers *************************************************************

* Do you really want quality?

Techrepublic.com conducted recently for Mks a survey with 550 respondants, mainly US developers, on software development needs. Here are some of the data you will find in this survey.

What percentage of the applications you build is Web-based?

  • 100%       8%
  • 76-99%    11%
  • 51-75%    13%
  • 26-50%    19%
  • 1-25%     38%
  • 0%        11%

Pick the description that best illustrates what is important to your organization?

  • Software quality 52%
  • Minimizing costs 23%
  • Speed of delivery 21%
  • Other 4%

What level of process management exists in you development organization?

  • Highly regulated 6%
  • Mature yet flexible 38%
  • Loose and informal 46%
  • Primitive 15%
  • Nonexistant 3%

The answers to the first question mainly recognise the shift toward web-based applications. The software development world is trying to regain some of the benefits of the mainframe era, letting only minimal amounts of code out of the secure and managed area of servers.

The two other results are very suprising for me. It look like these were answers made mostly by managers... :-] If quality has always been highly placed in the Powerpoint presentations of software development projects, the reality speaks more about short deadline and understaffed projects. The time to "think right" the project and to assess its quality through an extensive control has commonly been minimal. Do you know many project with "serious" test plans? (I am not speaking of documents with just list of screen to test... and sometimes THIS is already a big achievement!). It is stranger to see that 52% of the participants say that quality is the most important thing for their organisation and that 58% have a software development process that is at best loose and informal.

Source: "Changing Application Development Needs", www.mks.com

http://www.mks.com/campaigns/wptechrep.jsp

*** In Other's Words ****************************************************

* The Future of OOP

" Stroustrup: In C++, without appropriate libraries, anything significant seems complicated. With appropriate libraries, just about anything becomes manageable. Building and using libraries will become increasingly important. This implies an increase in generic programming, because only through that can libraries become general enough and efficient enough. I also expect to see growth in distributed computing and in the use of 'components'.

Stroustrup: I suspect the reason for a lack of success in this area is that people - primarily nonprogrammers - expect too much from vague notion of 'components'. These people dream that components will somehow make programmers unnecessary. Instead of lots of unpredictable geeks writing code, neatly suited 'designers' would compose systems out of prefabricated components using drag-and-drop. For tool vendors, the added attraction to this scenario is that only they would retain the skills need to write those components.

The fundamental fallacy of this vision is that it is extraordinarily hard to design and implement components with a wide appeal. A single component or framework that does most of what is needed for an application or an industry would be attractive to its owner, and isn't technically too hard to build. But various players in that industry would soon realize that if everybody used those components, they'd have no good way to differentiate their products from those of their competitors. They would become purveyors of a commodity, and the main profits would go the component/framework supplier.

Tiny 'components' can be useful, but don't offer much leverage. Medium-sized, more general components can be very useful, but such components require great flexibility in their composition.

Lindholm: Java technology's success is in part of a consequence of what it doesn't do. The question that needs to be asked is, 'Is the feature essential, and what is the cost of adding it to the language?' Operator overloading in C++ is in some ways a strong feature, but it also adds a great deal of complexity to the language and is difficult for many people to deal with. By making an inspired set of choices among the various tradeoffs that could be made, Java technology hits a sweet spot of capability of need.

Lindholm: Java technology isn't revolutionary in itself, but rather evolutionary: almost all of its features have existed in at least one other environment prior to the emergence of the Java platform. Java technology's valuable contribution is the choice of the set of features and the tradeoffs that have been made in making those choices to produce something both practical and aesthetically satisfying. Java technology cradles - but does not coddle - the programmer.

Stroustrup: The key advantage of a formal standard, such as the ISO standards for C and C++, is that it makes it hard for a vendor to manipulate the language for its own commercial gain. It provides for multiple vendors, which lower prices for users and provides long-term stability.

The advantage of proprietary languages is marketing-fueled popularity, cheap facilities (until the users have become locked in), and rapid responses to perceived commercial needs and fads.

Formal/open standards primarily serve the users/consumers of programming tools. Proprietary 'standards' primarily serve the vendors."

Source: "The Future of OOP", Bjarne Stroustrup & Tim Lindholm, The Future of Software, Winter 2000/2001.

Bjarne Stroustrup is the original designer of C++ and Tim Lindholm was an original member of the Java platform development team at Sun. Their comments are interesting because it is true that the Internet age has brought to life a new wave of languages (like Java, C# (the .NET language), Perl, Curl, PHP, etc.) in a situation where the positions seemed relatively established with Cobol, C (++ or normal) or VisualBasic as major actors.

The true actual battle for the development of Web-based applications seems to be mainly reduced to a Java versus .NET fight. The commercial power of Microsoft should not be underestimated. It will be even freer to use it after the abandon of the anti-trust charges from the US Department of Justice.

*** Conferences *********************************************************

Given the recent events in New York, USA, Sinan Si Alhir (a regular contributor to the Methods & Tools newsletter) has freely volunteered to deliver two seminars in association with the "Thirteenth Week - On-line Seminars for the September 11th Fund" to raise funds to benefit the victims [http://www.thirteenthweek.com/september11.html]. The seminars are [http://www.thirteenthweek.com/seminars.html]:

* The Unified Modeling Language (UML) (Sinan Si Alhir)

- December 15, 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM EST

* The Unified Process (UP) (Sinan Si Alhir)

- December 15 - 1:00 PM -2:30 PM EST

Seminars on other interesting software engineering topics (eXtreme Programming, Project Management, XML, JAVA, etc.) will also be presented. You will find a complete listing at http://www.thirteenthweek.com/seminars.html

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
August 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
August 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
May 2006
April 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
February 2005
January 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
May 2004
April 2004
February 2004
January 2004
November 2003
October 2003
August 2003
May 2003
April 2003
February 2003
January 2003
November 2002
October 2002
May 2002
April 2002
February 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
May 2001
April 2001
February 2001
January 2001
Winter 2000
Fall 2000

Software Testing
Magazine


The Scrum Expert