Rank: Member
Joined: 7/27/2005(UTC)
Posts: 40
|
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>[color=black></FONT>
<SPAN][/color]<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>[color=black>Hi
although]
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>[/color]
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>[color=black>1/]
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007><FONT face=Arial>[/color]
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>[color=black>
<SPAN]2/ It will also be much easier to identify and fix any future bugs if we don't use somebody elses code.[/color]
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007><FONT face=Arial>
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>>>my comments are:
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>a. from experience the code is well written and largely bug free. Although I will admit it may be more difficult to fix bugs in someone else's code the code is likely to be of higher quality than something written by a single developer with minimal testing resources plus we have the BVC support team and forums to fall back on.
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>Can anyone (e.g. BVC Sales) add to this?
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>thanks
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>Simon
<SPAN class=618333021-30082007>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 6/6/2005(UTC)
Posts: 483
|
Originally Posted by: "Somebody"  2/ It will also be much easier to identify and fix any future bugs if we don't use somebody elses code. I think this is upside down. When you have custom designed software (from the bottom up), you pretty much have to start over from scratch when the guy that wrote it gets a better job and moves on. If it is at all complicated, and it sounds like it would be based on the perceived amount of customization required, it could cost you more to fix the old version then it would to start over from scratch. Most generic software companies offer conversion help when new versions come out. In some cases like MS Word, the upgrade is pretty simple and allows you to use many new features you earlier had no use for. BV5 is modular in design. You only have to change the modules you want to modify. It is an easy matter to keep track of the current changed modules so your new developer only has to worry about those already documented. Yes, you may need to train someone how to program in dotnet now, but in 2 years, their will be a lot more people with that expertise. And in 2 years, its going to be harder to find someone that can program in Perl, PhP, or some of the already deprecated html's that are out there now. You may not have a use for many of the features now but you never know what you will want to use down the road. \ I guess the questions are: How much is BV5 going to cost vs the alternative, both now and in the future when modifications become necessary? And will the custom designed product comply with current and future legal requirements relating to Credit Card number storage, interfacing with CC processors, etc. Bob Noble
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 11/6/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,903
|
If all we needed was secure user account handling and payment (and nothing else) we would use BVC as the base. Secure user modules alone would take a week to write. At 100/hr. that's 4K. |
Noah |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/23/2006(UTC)
Posts: 8
|
As a .net developer I would say the following....
1) It is much easier and faster to use an existing code base than rewrite something from scratch. I have no interest in rewriting components that someone else has already done a good job of. Sorry to say that a lot of developers have this mentality where they refuse to buy third party components as they are under the misunderstanding that they are a risk to the business as you don't have the source code to support the business.
2) Your developer is right in saying that he does not know the framework and any changes that he does could affect the site. But this comes down to risk management, and advising you the client that these are the potential consequences.
3) Software development is getting more compontentised, we will see this more with VS 2008 (.net 3.5).
To sum it all up these days you are better to buy an existing framework, that has been tried and tested, than reinventing the wheel.
Hope this helps.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 5/6/2004(UTC)
Posts: 225
|
To add to what Richard said, VB.Net is nothing like Visual Basic 6. Visual Basic 6 was very easy to debug and Maintain, and there for easy to figure out what was being done, even if there were not many comments. As far as VB.Net goes, someone coming into a developed application will be totally lost, without there being tons of comments, which most people I have found do not do today. In VB.Net, if it works, use it, as it will take tons of time to re-invent the wheel. With BV5, I don't think any of us have run into memory problems, which is a huge plus for a web .net project. Why Microsoft chose to use the VB name with the .net version of VB, has me miffed. Visual Basic was built to be easy to write code, and easy to maintain the code, which VB.net totally does not conform to those basic standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 11/5/2003(UTC)
Posts: 1,786
|
Simon,
You may also want to consider what your long term support plan will be if you roll your own software. We've invested a huge amount of time in building modules for shippers and credit card gateways. Those interfaces will change on a fairly regular basis and we have to update our software to keep things working. If you roll your own you will need to factor in the cost of updates to third party services along with updating your own software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 11/17/2003(UTC)
Posts: 2,051
|
Wow. Yeah. Let someone else deal with security updates, patches, buggy code, etc. You're in the business of selling product, not writing software. <smile> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 7/27/2005(UTC)
Posts: 40
|
Thanks Guys
everything you have said further confirms my belief that writing something from scratch where so much is available OTS is a complete waste of time and money and of very high risk. Just needed more ammo.
Thank you for putting my gut feelings into words.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 8/17/2006(UTC)
Posts: 681
|
Simon,
I'm also a software developer working as a consultant in many projects around Australia and I found that there are two types of developers:
The ones that are inexperienced enough to know how to build a wheel so they write their own as they think they can do it better than others.
Every time it's different but it's never round.
Then there are the ones that are experienced enough and that can recognize a good wheel done by others and they spend their time and exprience making it better.
Reinventing the wheel is good only if you are very experienced and the wheels around you are not good enough OR if you really want a wheel that is not round.
I went for BVC5 and tried to improve it in my own way as their wheel is very nice and round.
Motivational speaking :p
Regards,
Corneliu. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 7/27/2005(UTC)
Posts: 40
|
Corneliu - thanks for you extremely erudite summary. Unfortunately the issue has re-surfaced (hence my visiting this thread again) but hopefully your comments will help put the nay-sayers down.
cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 5/1/2006(UTC)
Posts: 12
|
I've been a developer / consultant for a long time now and I've seen good code, bad code, and code that never should have been written. When I first worked with BVC 4.0 a couple years ago, I was literally amazed at how easy it was to work with. I'd never worked with someone else's code that was so streamlined. Sure, there were a few things I would have done differently but all in all figuring out how things worked was NOT a problem.
I'm not as familiar with the BVC 5.0 code base yet but I am optimistic that if it is developed by the same team, that they kept the basic good principles when they designed it.
I have no hesitation in recommending BVC to my clients as an easily maintainable eCommerce solution. |
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Anye Mercy
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Senior Consultant
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">CATAPULT SYSTEMS INC.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">ENABLING BUSINESS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Joined: 11/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 7
|
In today's world of good, well make applications, there is almost no need to start from scratch. You are always ahead with a software package then custom code.
A number of points to consider custom vs a purchased application
1. Custom apps tend not to be built for future modifications, most developers just find the need to get the initial project into production and nearly always cut corners in flexibility/design/extensibility
2. Unless you just choose the completely wrong app your total cost of ownership will be less with the purchased software.
3. Support is much better in purchased software due to a company usually stands ready to help, and so do others in the 3rd party marketplace
Support on a custom applicaiton is one of always paying more as staff moves on and the need to train new support staff is necessary. I've seen many a custom code be scrapped in year 2 -4 because it was easier to buy a new one again then change the old one.
4. Upward migration to new OS / Dev platforms is generally easier..
I based the above on 30+years worth of software development and consulting...
Rick |
Thanks...
Rick |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.