Rad and Non-Rad Shen Wei seems to say Delphi in Zhuhai in July 2002, talks 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 numerous programmers. Since then, it is also given such an impression --Rad is "granted to the wood". This also makes some "masters" disdain against RAD. Many beginners feel that VB is easy to use, and immediately write a program that can see the eye, 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 Is it difficult to board? Perhaps, developing with VB, it is indeed "granted wood". 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. Good tools should help users quickly, effectively, then Rad is playing such a role. It allows you to focus on the key points of the problem, use others to write a lot of test-based control according to the project's business logic, and assemble the software products that meet the customer needs, both guarantee the development speed, and improve quality (can Approximately the ready-made control is zero bug). In this sense, the development method of "granted as a wooden" is existing, which is also a form of "modular" in the world's dreams. "Planted wood" itself is not wrong, 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 the beginner has come into contact with RAD, as if I find the shortcut of learning. However, these people may eventually be lost because they are simple and easy to use, they need solid foundation as reliance. 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 protocol-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, there is no replenishment, and you know more, The easier it is to solve when you have problems. The simplicity of RAD is only reduced by the developer's learning curve when trying to use RAD. As another example, suppose SDK programming in the Windows environment, you can get out of the Win32 API, so when you use Delphi, there will be no difficulties, and how much you are familiar with how the VCL is packaged. These APIs can be packaged. 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, which is often heard that some people say that the content of the college computer professional learning is related to the actual needle. 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.
