RAD and NON-RAD
Most of this article is ready to appear in a new book that is writing, but the theme of the book and the book is not very embarrassed after writing, so he will delete it from the book. However, I feel that this text said a lot of words that I have always wanted, so I will independently.
It seems to say Delphi, talk about this topic. Nice, Delphi is RAD (Rapid Application Development, fast application development tool).
The emergence of VB set off a programming revolution, which brought visual programming, a programming method of countless programmers. But since then, it has left such an impression --Rad is a wooden. This also makes some "master" disdain against RAD. Many beginners feel that VB is easy to use, and you can write a procedure that can look at it, but after learning, after using it, it feels that there is no further step. So, the blame RAD is too simple. Even many skilled Delphi programmers will have similar concerns, is RAD not to board the elegant?
Perhaps, it is also possible to have a wooden. However, please don't think this is all of RAD. Moreover, Delphi is absolutely different from VB!
First, rads are tools to improve production efficiency. Tools are used by people to solve practical problems, rather than use to show off or as theory. A good tool should help users get fast and effectively, then Rad is playing such a role. It allows you to focus on the key points of the problem, use others, and organize the software products that meet the customer's needs according to the business logic of the project. It guarantees the development speed and improves quality (which can approximate the ready control is zero bug). In this sense, the development of wood is the value of the existence of the "modularity" in the world's dreams. It is not wrong with wood itself, and RAD is not wrong.
Second, RAD is an industrial development tool, not a learning tool. As we all know, RAD is easy to use, and beginners have come into contact with RAD, as if they find the shortcuts of learning. However, these people may eventually be lost. Because of the simple and easy-to-use, it is a need for solid foundation. The original intention of RAD is to let developers don't have to consider too many annoying details, but not the support of the relevant basic theory. For example, when developing a TCP-based network application, you don't have to know the format of the TCP package, but if you don't even know anything, even if there is RAD. Moreover, the more you know, the easier to solve it when you have problems. The simplicity of RAD is only reduced by the developer's learning curve when trying to use RAD. Another example: You are proficient in the SDK programming in the Windows environment, you can get out of the Win32 API you need, then, when you use Delphi, there will be no difficulties, and you are so familiar with how the VCL is packaged. These APIs. If Delphi is a very difficult development tool, will you consume energy to use it? It is better to develop directly with SDK. If you will master the RAD itself as a learning goal, then you are destined to be a amateur programming enthusiast (there is no meaning of the enthusiast, just relative to professional programmer). Here, the author has some questions, often hear that some people say that the content of the University's computer professional learning is related to the actual needs of the need. In fact, how can it be not detachful? Really want to teach VB, VC, DELPHI is not detachment? If this is true, what should I do if VB, VC, Delphi eliminate? That is true sorrow. The words retired, so RAD is not a shortcut to learning, and RAD is an implementing tool. Finally, RAD and NON-RAD are complementary. RAD and NON-RAD have different sights, existence and support groups, and their existence has no conflict, nor does it need to be aligned. Often visible Non-Rad users ridiculed the "low order" of Rad's users, in fact, these so-called "master" is just high. Use VC to "high-level" than people using VB? What programming language is used in the project, development tools, often not your personal, will be subject to many factors. For example: the customer's hardware environment, operating system environment, development environment, cost, license, etc. of the development tool, what tools do not have problems. Moreover, professional programmers should not be loyal to development tools, but should be loyal to their programming concept. I will only say "The Favorite XX Development Tool", "The most familiar XX development tool", never say "I am using XX development tools". Therefore, RAD is not equal to low-order, and Non-Rad does not mean high people. The existence of RAD and NON-RAD does not conflict. Personal levels are high, nor through the tools you use.
A lot of programming enthusiasts who have just started, got a few days of VB or Delphi or C Builder, and then dragged several controls and declared that they had learned to program, this is some blind. This is also one of the reasons why RAD will be misunderstood. It is undeniable that the appearance of RAD makes the threshold of programming be lowered. However, the threshold is not equal to all, the program design itself is a profound understanding, and the most important thing to do learning is rigorous and practical.
