/bill's House O Insomnia : Humor, .NET General

Comment of the week - Sql Server Reporting Services vs. Crystal

William — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:27:00 GMT

A while ago, I posted this about how much a55 I think Crystal Reports sucks. A long time ago, back at like v.7, I thought Crystal was a decent product. And to be honest, it still is a decent product. But it comes with a lot of baggage and has a lot that just makes it lame. So I had almost total consenus on the Crystal Reports w/ .NET sucks side, I think there are two people that disagree. Ignoring the fact that SSRS is very new product and Crystal has been around forever, I think side by side it's a slam dunk. But one big mouth said this: (NOTE: I'm only posting a comment that was publicly posted on my site. So hopefully the guy won't be a cry baby about it and throw a temper tantrum over it)

"Either you guys are idiots or you have never used Crystal and don't realize the minimal functionality that SQL Reporting Services offers. I have spent the last week evaluating SSRS and am greatly dissapointed. I came up with a list of over 250 items that SSRS could not do. As for all you Access reporters, your probably the only people to ever purchase Microsoft's "Bob" product. "

So the guy claims to know enough about Crystal to have cataloged over 250 features that SSRS doesn't have. That means that including the features he'll admit it does have, he knows way more than 250 features. I think that would qualify you as a fairly advanced Crystal user if you'll pardon the oxymoron. And he spent one week with SSRS. And the only conclusion he can draw is that SSRS is definitely lacking those features and that it couldn't possibly be that he just doesn't know how to use them, right? And far be it from me to say anything positive about Access, but come on, being a hard core Crystal user still means you're the report ***, and that gives you credentials to snob no one. Certainly not Access developers and certainly not Bob users. Is he really claiming Bob was lame but Crystal Reports isn't? Pulllleeezz. But if you read the context of the comments, the people were pointing out that Access, as lame as it is, provides more effective funcionality. The fact this can even be debated speaks volumes don't you think? Is Access supposed to be first and foremost a report writer? Last time I looked it's main purpose was as a relational database (more precisely, a database that anyone can build with, that causes major headaches for the people that will inevitably be brought in to clean up the mess it made) not a report writer. Reports are one of its features but one would certainly expect that a mature product who's sole purpose is report writing ought to be a little better than a RDBMS product with reports added in.

So I offered a challenge, I asked him to post just 20 of his 250 features that CR can do that SSRS can't. I'll see if they really can't be done and post the results. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If he's wrong I'll point out what an a33hat he is. I actually believe there are probably 20 or so features missing, but certainly not major ones. Even assuming there were really 250 features missing, how many times do you need 250 features for a report? Typically you need Grouping, Subreporting, charts/graphs, conditional formatting, functions and the like. He didn't comment as to his evaluation of how each stacked up there - for reasons that are obvious. Anyway, I believe his 250+ number about as much as I believe in the easter bunny so although *someone* could probably post 20 things lacking, I doubt he can. One of us is very wrong here and hopefully it's not me. We'll have to wait and see.

Overriding ToString()

William — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:28:00 GMT

I had mentioned reading Effective C#, 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your C# back a few posts ago. So I decided to show off a few of the techniques there as well as some new C# features and began with this post. . Anyway, when I started writing out the examples, I kept adding new things and it started to turn into a really long piece. Well, I need to start at the beginning and just let things go from there, otherwise I'll never get finished. So let's start at the absolute beginning.

I ran through a bunch of my existing code and looked for the number of times I did an override on the ToString() method. Except for a few times when I had a specific need to do so, I didn't find many. Well, if you look at the Framework, it's obvious that many of the classes have an override on the ToString() method and when they do, it's usually quite helpful. I know, this is such an easy thing to do that it barely warrants discussion but I think that the fact that I (and the majority of developers I know as well as the majority of code I've seen) so seldom do it makes it worth emphasizing. If you don't ever do it, it won't have ANY notable effect on the way your code runs. However, it can (and does) make a difference in how user friendly your libraries are to developers using your code.

Stated simply, you don't have to use XML Comments in your class libraries (and until recently, if you used VB.NET, you couldn't unless you wired them in yourself or bought an Add-In), you don't have to use enums to assist users with intellisense, you don't have to overload your constructors or other methods, but it sure makes your code a lot nicer to use if you do. Well, if you look at the original Shocker Class I wrote, I have a override for ToString(). Assuming you passed in “Stink” and “Pink” respectively to the overloaded constructor, you'll see “One in the Stink, Two in the Pink” as the output. However if you comment out the override, you'll DoubleI.TheShocker.Shocker. Outside of the fact that this class was contrived and a bit flippant, the point should be obvious, namely, that you can provide a LOT more useful information than the Namespace.Class.

Outside of the Override though - you can overload the ToString() method and with a little footwork, have a much more user friendly class (the intellisense support alone is worth the price of admission) Anyway, I know this is pretty lame but I'm trying to formulate as many things as I can with a simple example though. By taking full advantage of the XML Comments you can do quite a bit and just a combination like this, of two really simple techniques can make your class a lot more user friendly. And before you call me a l4mer for posting this - hold your horses, I'm going somewhere with this.:

/// <summary>

/// Method to provide a more granular feedback mechanism

/// for the user by specifying what is returned by the ToString()

/// method.

/// </summary>

/// <param name="formatOptions"><see cref="DoubleI.TheShocker.OutPutOptions"/> value

/// allowing the user to specify what they want to show.</param>

/// <returns><see cref="System.String"/> value showing the

/// <see cref="System.String"/> representation corresponding

/// to the <see cref="DoubleI.TheShocker.OutPutOptions"/> specified

/// by the user</returns>

/// <remarks>

/// Values for the <see cref="DoubleI.TheShocker.OutPutOptions"/>

/// parameter are specified below:

/// <list>

/// <item>OutPutOptions.None = 0</item>

/// <item>OutPutOptions.PrivateMembers = 1</item>

/// <item>OutPutOptions.ProtectedMembers = 2</item>

/// <item>OutPutOptions.PublicMembers = 3</item>

/// <item>OutPutOptions.All = 4</item>

/// <item>OutPutOptions.Silliness = 5</item>

/// </list>

/// </remarks>

/// <example>

/// Shocker ShockerSample = new Shocker("Stink", "Pink");

/// Console.WriteLine(ShockerSample.ToString(OutPutOptions.Silliness);

/// //Will yeild "One in the Stink, Two in the Pink

/// </example>

public String ToString(OutPutOptions formatOptions)

{

switch (formatOptions)

{

case OutPutOptions.None:

return "Nice Going A55Munch, this is a useless overload and call";

case OutPutOptions.PrivateMembers:

return String.Format("_oneValue: {0}, _twoValue {1}",

this._oneValue,

this._twoValue);

case OutPutOptions.ProtectedMembers:

return "Bill was lazy and didn't create any protected members yet";

case OutPutOptions.PublicMembers:

return String.Format("OneValue: {0}, TwoValue {1}",

this.OneValue,

this.TwoValue);

case OutPutOptions.All:

return String.Format("_oneValue: {0}, _twoValue {1}"

+ ", OneValue: {2}, TwoValue{3}",

this._oneValue,

this._twoValue,

this.OneValue,

this.TwoValue );

case OutPutOptions.Silliness:

default:

return String.Format("One in the {0}, Two in the {1}",

this.OneValue,

this.TwoValue);

}

http://www.everythingado.net

William — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:45:00 GMT

Well, I finally bit the bullet and purchased my site from Brinkster. I'm going to be hosting blogs for a few of my disaffected DNJ friends - but well, due to the nature of the site - I'm not handing them out to everyone - If I know you, or you can convince me your not a dork, or if you're a dork and can convince me you have some technical content - drop me a line or if you're a regular contributor to a newsgroup that begins with microsoft.public.dotnet.framework - if it ends with compactframework or adonet then you're automatically invited. I'm also going to have a Uncensored portion or which is going to be cool - Bridgette Kerkove, Jenna Jameson, Janine & TS type of cool. I'm debating about how to host the “Unrelated Cool“ content - probably make it restricted access. And on the off chance you're wondering - no, I'm not moving my blog over there. I really dig it here. But I want to do a few things. Sahil already found a good place but it seems DNJ is going to crap these days - I see more Exception messages than I do content since 2005 began. I also want to host a few web services that are public, a few private ones that I can dish out the tokens to if people are interested... etc etc.Part of the reason I want to host my own Text stuff is b/c I want to mod it out - and I can't create skinz and stuff without being an pain in the a33 to the wonderful patron of this site. basically I just want a playground - ADO.NET and Compact Framework oriented - where I and other people that don't write me STUPID hate mail all the time can use.

But the real rub is that it looks like they are going to let me install the 2.0 framework to run some ASP.NET 2.0 and Yukon samples on. Still gotta check with MS and make sure this is ok but I think it will be. If it is, then there's Lot's o Potential. Can't get too into the details now - but using Yukon - there's potentially a much cooler way to send out notifications that articles have been posted, blogs updated, or Bridgette has another movie available. Also, Sonny & EDC the Coding Cuckooz are going to be active in development - and you know what sort of stuff they are interested in. Suffering at the moment from More ideas than ability to stay awake...............

Setting up .Text is a total pain in the a33 - at least so far it has been. It's mainly the web interface and all the f**** sql scripts that I have to run - ONE AT A TIME. Anyway, I'm screwing around with .NET Nuke and one of the starter kits. can't figure out which one I prefer. Feedback is welcome.

I'm also working w/ one of the starter kits but I'm leaning more toward .NET Nuke. Not sure if the hype is real but I hear it is - so sometime tomorrow hopefully I'll have made up my mind. I won't be doing anything other than sitting in my apartment wondering why this whole f~ck1ng city is shut down b/c of 1/2 an inch of snow - so I should get something done.

Another Priceless WTF

William — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 00:18:00 GMT

I've seen some really bad code - but this takes the cake .

Friend ReadOnly Property CheckUserRole() As Boolean 
  Get 
    Dim user As SystemUser = SystemUser.CurrentUser 
    If user.AssertRole(RoleTypes.Admin) Then 
      Return 0 
    Else 
      If user.AssertRole(RoleTypes.Training) Then 
       Return 1 
      Else 
        If user.AssertRole(RoleTypes.Supervisor) Then 
          Return 2 
        End If 
      End If 
    End If 
  End Get 
End Property

There's no GD excuse from trash like this. NONE. VB.NET - (Option Strict On) = VB6 . Why even write in .NET without Option Strict On? As soon as the guy that wrote this cashed his paycheck he should have been arrested for THEFT.

But the money quote is this:

<<Isn't it incredible how many run-time mysteries become compile-time wavy underlines with circles and arrows and flashing lights and sound effects when you use Option Explicit/Option Strict?
>>

Flame bait continued.

William — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:10:00 GMT

Rule #1: Never get into an argument with Frans. In all 25 of the arguments I've seen him get into - he makes total jackass3s out of the other person and I usually spend about 10 minutes laughing my a33 off afterward.

Rule#2: Never get into an argument with Jon . He's just like Frans except more 'serious'

Ok, I've got to hide names to protect the innocent but here's a few threads:

Unnamed VB Advocate: “And the language that has wizards just to add a property is ?? “
Followed up by the same person: “see :C# - for the self deluding ;”

Unnamed Dutch Guy referred to in Rule #1: “coming from a developer who uses a language which requires the
developer to explicitly explain to the compiler that a method with
signature XYZ is indeed the implementation of a method of an interface,
as apparently the compiler isn't able to figure that one out for
himself. ;).

Yeah, these VB guys really like to type a lot ;)”

Million dollar response from Unnamed guy in Rule #2: “How can a language have a wizard? Please distinguish between languages and development environments.“

Not to be outdone - Million Dollar response from Unnamed Dutch Guy: “No, it's used as a signal to the compiler that it overloads a method in
another inheritance level. It is also used for stupid constructs like
when you implement an abstract method:

Public Overloads Overrides Sub Foo()
...

Overloads Overrides? come on! :)”

Let me interject... This last one is all that needs said. If you think Overloads Overrides is a cool construct then you're smoking rock.

Ok, but here's where it gets good:

VB Advocate: “C# - What language were they using ?

C# - For Homeless programmers

C# - for the Semi-colon retentive

C# - 4 the cAsE PeDaNtIc

C# - it's just like JScript ;

C# - The choice of the crappy VB programmers

C# - When you really want to F*CK your code, there's no F*CKing like UnSaFe
F*CKing “

Now for the zinger:

Unnamed Dutch Guy: “LOL, My.LittlePony :D“

<Yes, I the pun was intended>

Shortly thereafter:

Unnamed Dutch Guy: “C# - When the job requires professionalism

or

C# - When expressional power asks for something more than 'My oh My'”

Ok, I better stop but one last one:

Unnamed VB Advocate: “VB Make Hard Things Easier”

Unnamed Dutch Guy: “heh sure :)

try in VB.NET:
- inherit a class Foo from DataTable
- add a private member variable Bar to Foo with a property
- try to make Bar get serialized into the datastream when an instance of
Foo gets serialized.

Happy coding! :)”

Unnamed VB Advocate: “Very smoothly. I tired C#, I didn't find anything better.”

And this my friends, says it all (Please - reread the above sentence):

Unnamed Dutch Guy: “correct, as VB.NET can't do it.”

Busted. Somehow I doubt Old boy even knew what the Dutch guy was talking about - either that or he's a terrible liar.

The sad thing is that the First VB Advocate is a pretty sharp dude and someone I have quite a bit of respect for. can't understand why he's making a fool out of himself here. Oh well - I found it funny, figured you would too.

Flame Bait

William — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 05:45:00 GMT

Someone unnamed in a group also unnamed is taking part in a VB.NET vs. C# Debate at a unnamed user's group. So he was enlisting help in coming up with slogans. This was one of the ideas as a slogan for C#:

VB'ers Need not Apply

I hate language wars, particularly the really dumb ones between VB.NET and C# - which is like arguing about BigWheel's vs Ferrari's - I mean arguing about the differences between the BMW 318i and 318e. But I just burst out into laughter when I read this. Not because it's particuarly true or funny (although it is) but because of the reaction that it's going to cause. Just picture a .NET User's group with a bunch of VB.NET and C# programmers sitting around - which will unquestionably have high attendance because of the subject - and just imagine the look of the VBers when this little motto gets spit out. That'd be something like Jacques Chirac heading over to the Promise Keepers and telling them that France's new motto is Christians need not apply. I want to go to this meeting so bad - with a Video Camera. I like “You can't turn Option Explicit or Option Strict off in real langauges - and they're on by default” Or another great one “We make more money than you - get over it” No, I'm not advocating these motto's, I just think that if you're going to head into a group of developers and start dropping bombs - why half step? Then again - why not go all the way “VB - the official language of the Daily WTF” or “99% of C# developers surveyed don't even know what Access is, and the one that did hates it”