Dmytri Kleiner (quirk / syntac.net) writes:
> Good thing that you only mislead a few customers into overpaying for
> crap. Your company is just a bankruptcy waiting for a competent
> competitor to make it happen.

Our customers seems to be quite satisfied with our system.

And - in difference to you - they actually know the system in question,
so I think they are somewhat better apt to tell whether it is crap or
not.
 
> What bunk, saying the competitor tried 'precicely what I teach' and
> thus failed is an obvious attempt to fallaciously discredit my
> argument with out actually addressing it. You're a ham fisted shill.

I think that I made it quite clear in my first post that your suggested
strategy indeed may be very valid sometimes. But what I've been pointing
out is that this far from always the case. 

Doing the sort of abstraction you suggested is *very* expensive, and
for small companies like ours or our competitor, this a huge enterprise
to take on for systems with over 500 tables and over 3500 stored procedures.
(That data is for our system; Obviously I don't have the data for our
competitor's system, but I do know the business they were targeting.)

-- 
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, sommar / algonet.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp