1C is not bad, but 1C do not like programmers anyway

This article is a kind of response to the publication “Why 1C is bad and why 1C programmers don’t like it so much” . I have been doing programming for 1C for many years and I want to say that it’s obliquely looking at us because of such authors of articles. Let's take a look at what we have now.

Platform

We have a platform and configurations written for it.

Updating the platform brings additional functionality, takes away a certain number of bugs and brings some naturally. In principle, in my personal opinion, whining about the fact that after upgrading the platform work in the office got up is not correct. First of all, backups of the databases before the upgrade should save from problems with the bases. Well, the opportunity to return to the old platform has not been canceled. It's like blaming Microsoft or the authors of free software for the fact that after the release of the patch / update everything disappeared, and the thought of making a copy of the data did not come into your head. Yes, now there are problems with software keys. But you can use the hardware (they are a bit more expensive), or at the time of the technical works, you can install non-Orthodox patches to restore the office, which will temporarily solve the problem of the lack / incapacity of the key. An office job of 30-40 people is more important.
')

Configurations

Here is where the critics roam, but let's go in order.

Let's say we have a regular trade organization and we have enough functionality for the “Trade Management 10.3 / 11” configuration.

Here we have two options for using this software:

1. Use only basic functionality and be updated monthly upon the release of new configuration versions.
2. Do not update at all and, if necessary, add functionality that we need.

In fact, the second option is used most often. The configuration is set, configured and throughout the life of the organization it is practically not updated. Maximum - printed forms are corrected according to the regulations. That's basically it. Why constantly tormented and transfer changes from release to release is not clear.

Of course, you can argue and say that the organization has, for example, accounting. Consider this option.

Accounting needs to be constantly updated due to changes in legislation, rates in tax and pension funds, and other weekly hard work of accountants.

For data transfer between trade and accounting, usually use the rules of exchange. This is a kind of rule written in xml, which describes which data objects are unloaded, how they are loaded; You can also specify additional processing before, after at the time of upload / download. If our trading configuration is unchanged, then we don’t touch the unloading rules (with rare exceptions, if there were any coordinated changes). Rules of loading, we will not change too often. The fact of receipt / sale of goods will always be transferred. But the procedure for calculating taxes and other things will already be calculated in the updated accounting and it will not affect the trading configuration.

Let's complicate and start counting salary in a separate configuration "Salary and personnel management." We update it too and it quietly exchanges with the accounting department according to standard (or changed by us) rules.

It seems silly to remind me, but I still dare. Before updates and changes, you should always make backups. Well, you must agree, it is silly to whine that after the upgrade everything broke and the whole company is worth a stake. Since There is no way to sell, nor write out, or call. All contacts, accounts and information in the database.

Using 1C in various business areas

Yes, 1C is a monopolist in the market of software designed to automate accounting and delivery of financial statements.

If we are talking about a small business segment, then for accounting in most firms you can use almost any program that is a bit more complicated than pivot tables in Excel. Accounting for piece goods / services, debit / creditors accounting, payroll. Filing reports is possible through third-party programs, in which the totals are simply driven in.
If the business is larger, then 1C competitors are Navision, Oracle, in very large examples it is SAP.

But here we are confronted with other specifics. Our legislation changes quite often. And if foreigners are already engaged in maintaining the relevance of their software products, they do not always keep up with the changes. Since the number of implementations of "NOT 1C programs" is small, the cost of ownership becomes high. It is difficult to find a specialist who can quickly update (subject to the availability of the update) or configure / configure an existing software product.

In 1C there are undoubted advantages with the connection of commercial equipment (scales, scanners, terminals, boards). Moreover, in standard configurations this is done at the user level. Add the ability to connect external processing and printing forms to expand the functionality, to obtain additional reports without making changes to the configuration. As a result, if you correctly approach, then there is no point in crawling "inside" the configuration.

Another thing is that it is easier and cheaper to insert a crutch, which will fall off after the update, and put the client on the needle. Then constantly water 1C and say that they release it so often, and with the same frequency come to the client and get a bit of cash from him.

It seems to me that the main reason for the negative for 1C is that the code is open. No one has seen how Word or Navision was written, and no one will go there to append their buttons, which will not do at all what the developers intended. It is foolish to write that everything is updated, even what I do not use. Do not update the module that is responsible for bookmarks in the browser, I do not use it. Or footers in the Word are not needed at all, remove them from the update. Do not like it - do not update, or when updating, read what has changed.

From myself I will add that I am not a representative of franchisee firms or a partner. I am engaged in automation of accounting for 1C for more than 7 years. If it is interesting, I can tell in more detail about the intricacies of accounting in the realities of our time.