Three seperate layers or not

Question

Hi Everybody,
Using three tiered architecture is an industry wide accepted standard for developing good applications.
But what do u tell people who refuse to accept that. I'm sure atleast some of you would have had to work with people who have strong opinions against three seperate tiers. In their opinions 3 layers are not required. They say it just adds more work.
For examples in a struts based application, people argue that its is perfectly fine to include all your business logic in the Action classes and that creating seperate business rule classes is useless as it just add more classes to the application.
So what do u tell them ?
Thanks

Answer 1

I would like to
think I'm one of the exceptions to your "rule."It's not a rule, just an observation. I also know very many excellent developers.
Their overriding impression of software
development is that it's always a messIt is. Murphy rules. To believe otherwise is a recipe
for continual disappointment and frustration.
I have worked on several projects where the simplest requirements were turned into a mess because of bad practices by management and development. On the other hand I have also worked on a few where requirements were uncertain, often complex when they were discovered and ever changing and the project went well because of good practices by everyone involved - those practices were chosen precisely because of the challenges involved (and that is something that experience can teach if one is willing to learn). Unquestionably there are factors outside our control. Not everything is outside our control, however.
and they often
use phrases like 'in the real world...', 'that'sjust
academic stuff', 'we have to be pragmatic', etcAnd the inverse: "That's not how we did it in school!"
There are always trade-offs and compromises to be
made. Nothing is ever perfect, only "mostly right for
the time/situation/constraints."Actually, my point was not about school/work. What the first phrase often really means is 'In the world that I know'. What the second phrase often really means is 'That's book stuff that I can't relate to my work'. What the third phrase often really means is 'I fear walking off the path that I know'. All of these statements are perfectly reasonable for thinking beings that have a stake in what they're doing. In their original forms though, they tend to shut down the discussion, particularly when stated from the pedestal of experience. Progress depends on change - we desparately need progress in the way we, as a profession, think about software and its development.
>
The reason that it's often a mess for them isbecause
they insist on behaving in a substandard way and
applying archaic methods that are 'tried andtrusted'
(tried and trusted to cause chaos and pain itseems).
I think you're doing a great disservice by painting
with such broad strokes in black-and-white. There is
no black, no white - only grey. How grey is
what matters. (That's something the "years of
experience" will teach you.)I am speaking in general terms, so broad strokes are to be expected and greyness should be assumed. There are many dimensions to the problem each with many effects. Of course there are many good developers that have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. I agree that it could have been phrased better.
Regards,
Lance