3 ms·

Right after WinXP came out, I was a sys/win admin at a manufacturing co. Their ERP system was an old VB app that sat on a share drive and everyone opened the sa

Right after WinXP came out, I was a sys/win admin at a manufacturing co. Their ERP system was an old VB app that sat on a share drive and everyone opened the same .exe from their respective workstations. The app required a ton of scheduled database and ERP tasks (it used a legacy flat-file db), so the vendor wrapped them all up in a secondary executable that was effectively a non-headless (headful?) daemon (this was expensive, niche industry software btw). The first instance of the application that opened would also trigger the daemon to open too, on whichever PC it was executed on (it was supposed to be opened on the server 1st). It was provided by the vendor this way, as part of the COTS application. As a result of this daemon hack, every couple days (after the application crashed on the server, as it did frequently) I would run around the building to dozens and dozens of workstations until I found the user’s workstation that had been the first to run the ERP after the server process crashed, and thus had the daemon running on their workstation. Then I would kill it, and sprint back to the server closet to reopen the daemon before any other users would run the ERP and grab the daemon (later would just RDP after we got off NT). It was awesome.

davb 9y ago
Oh wow. Yeah, that sort of thing seems to have been so common in ERP software. My first professional programming job was working on a bespoke ERP and industrial process control suite (written in PowerBuilder). The program had a huge number of sub programs (dynamically loaded modules, each an MDI window accessed using a “program name”, something like a SAP transaction code). We had a number of background services that would have to run, however writing Windows services in PowerBuilder was anything but easy. And we were reluctant to use anything else - the whole benefit of using a 4GL was a well integrated ORM and report generating functionality. So we’d implement our background services as regular modules (with their little MDI window) within the main thick client app. Clients would have a number of workstations dedicated to running a single one of these processes. Nothing headless, each outputting it’s status or logs to he connected display. If the power, network or database ever dropped, each of these machines would have to be restarted and have its allocated sub program reopened. For example, despatch label printing program would monitor a database queue table for new rows, bring up a report associated with the specified despatch note, print the report to the label printer then delete the row. It seems so hackish but it worked incredibly well. Our clients were all food or paper manufacturers, running 24/7. Operations were rarely disrupted. Have a single screen per function to monitor for status changes was something operators were accustomed to. This was over a decade ago, but I’ve never worked with a more productive team since. The constraints of the system let us focus on solving business problems. I can’t imagine writing anything of this scale in a modern environment. I’d love to see 4GLs like this make a comeback. The first class GUI, ORM, report generation were a huge productivity boost. And the simple programming language (with a very simple object model) put the focus on problem solving and not API acrobatics. Simpler times.
- astockwell 9y ago
  No kidding. Everything got clear queueing and back-pressure for free!
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
Back at CS school, that's the definition I always hoped to hear of "race condition".
ashleyn 9y ago
I looked up ERP software in google images. Holy poor UX, Batman! There's a great market opportunity there for something that doesn't spew out everything at once onscreen.
- davb 9y ago
  From the outside it definitely looks this way. And some enterprise software (Oracle, Peoplesoft) definitely have some real UX gaps. However... in a professional, power-user environment, high information density is massive plus. Being able to see as much information as possible, with as few clicks as possible, and as few round-trips to the server as possible, is very desirable. The less information you have per screen/interaction, the more you lock users into a specific way of doing things. Business software users tend to optimise for what works for them. The worst UX experiments I’ve conducted in enterprise software involved low information density screens, showing users just what they told me they needed to see. User expectations in this space are so nuanced - better to favour more information and a high learning curve vs easier to user but less flexible software.

davb 9y ago

Oh wow. Yeah, that sort of thing seems to have been so common in ERP software. My first professional programming job was working on a bespoke ERP and industrial process control suite (written in PowerBuilder). The program had a huge number of sub programs (dynamically loaded modules, each an MDI window accessed using a “program name”, something like a SAP transaction code). We had a number of background services that would have to run, however writing Windows services in PowerBuilder was anything but easy. And we were reluctant to use anything else - the whole benefit of using a 4GL was a well integrated ORM and report generating functionality. So we’d implement our background services as regular modules (with their little MDI window) within the main thick client app. Clients would have a number of workstations dedicated to running a single one of these processes. Nothing headless, each outputting it’s status or logs to he connected display. If the power, network or database ever dropped, each of these machines would have to be restarted and have its allocated sub program reopened. For example, despatch label printing program would monitor a database queue table for new rows, bring up a report associated with the specified despatch note, print the report to the label printer then delete the row. It seems so hackish but it worked incredibly well. Our clients were all food or paper manufacturers, running 24/7. Operations were rarely disrupted. Have a single screen per function to monitor for status changes was something operators were accustomed to. This was over a decade ago, but I’ve never worked with a more productive team since. The constraints of the system let us focus on solving business problems. I can’t imagine writing anything of this scale in a modern environment. I’d love to see 4GLs like this make a comeback. The first class GUI, ORM, report generation were a huge productivity boost. And the simple programming language (with a very simple object model) put the focus on problem solving and not API acrobatics. Simpler times.

astockwell 9y ago
No kidding. Everything got clear queueing and back-pressure for free!

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

Back at CS school, that's the definition I always hoped to hear of "race condition".

ashleyn 9y ago

I looked up ERP software in google images. Holy poor UX, Batman! There's a great market opportunity there for something that doesn't spew out everything at once onscreen.

davb 9y ago
From the outside it definitely looks this way. And some enterprise software (Oracle, Peoplesoft) definitely have some real UX gaps. However... in a professional, power-user environment, high information density is massive plus. Being able to see as much information as possible, with as few clicks as possible, and as few round-trips to the server as possible, is very desirable. The less information you have per screen/interaction, the more you lock users into a specific way of doing things. Business software users tend to optimise for what works for them. The worst UX experiments I’ve conducted in enterprise software involved low information density screens, showing users just what they told me they needed to see. User expectations in this space are so nuanced - better to favour more information and a high learning curve vs easier to user but less flexible software.