Dave, I can see trouble shooting all of these in a hurry EXCEPT the poor database schema. Doesn't that problem normally require a complete overhaul? I'm trying to envision fixing a bad schema in a hurry - it's not happening <g>.
-mk -----Original Message----- From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:12 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: UDF question > > Dave - 250$ an hour? send them to us, we'll work for > > half that <g>. > > Maybe it's $250 an hour because they can do so same work (or > better) in less than half the time? Just a thought. Close, perhaps, but more like "because we fix the work after your original consultant screwed up, and you don't have time to wait to get it fixed." But, as much as it's nice to be able to charge rates like that, I'd prefer to charge our normal rates - about half that - to develop something right the first time. It's no fun slaving over someone else's bad code in a rush, trying to figure out the application logic and fix it as quickly as possible. You'd think Fusebox would help here, but in my experience, badly-written Fusebox code isn't any easier to figure out than badly-written non-Fusebox code, and if it were well-written in the first place, I wouldn't be there. And lately, the common problems seem to be: 1) locking issues, edging out the historic #1 contender, 2) bad SQL usage, followed by 3) bad data schema design, and trailing that, 4) poor use of runtime processing (doing things at runtime that could be cached, or done at off-peak times) Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
