Small thoughts about alternatives and about the "killers" 1C

I recently read an article about an alternative to 1C, about the fact that it is non-modular and not a cake at all.

And the reason, it seems to me, of such articles, is that the authors either haven’t been following the development of the 1C platform for a long time, or have been driven by youthful maximalism, or have an unsuccessful experience. In this article I will try to explain my point of view that 1C is cool and very viable.

I apologize in advance for the confusion, just writing hot on the trail.

1. Let's first divide the company's activities into three major components: reporting for the head, reporting for the state and business logic

I'll start with reporting for the state. Here I mean various declarations such as VAT, profit, reporting to the FSS and the FIU, and so on. In our country, the law often enough likes to change either the report form or the reporting format. Here I think that 1C ahead of all. Yes, there are shoals, but they have recently been quite small. The victory over the open source lies in the fact that not every open source product will be ready to provide reports on time.
')
Reporting to the manager - here the 1C company loses outright to all third-party applications (I'm talking about typical configurations). Such reporting is either not at all, or it can not be read by the manager (there’s a light pebble in the direction of the manager’s qualifications). Personally, I have not seen another project where the director had enough reports out of the box.

Business logic. As practice has shown, it all depends on how late 1C came to the company. Fair. In early childhood, when 1C programmers were few, the organization that bought the 7.7 trade box was forced to work according to the business logic of the program in order to get correct reporting. This somewhat disoriented users at the initial stage, but the transition to the next versions was easy and defiant.

But when it comes to specialized (industry) solutions, then 1Snikov has trouble and sorrow. Now I will explain the reason. 1C, in principle, does not monitor the quality of 1C-compatible products, and it turns out that some kind of franc, having come to the project, begins to customize the typical solution for the needs of the project and then presents it as an “industry solution”. It goes without saying that behind this lies a clear business model of the task designer, the franchisee does not provide any flexibility inherent in typical solutions from 1C. And, when trying to implement this solution in another company with a similar field of activity, we get a train that needs to be turned into a plane with a file. For the most part, the program code is terrible and cannot be easily and simply read and understood by the French. I believe that it was precisely this moment that scared many potential buyers.

Uh, sort of dealt with the first item.

2. Modularity of open source versus 1C

Platform 8, unlike platform 7.7, allows you to create common modules with functional separation, such as a module with functions and procedures for processing payroll and a module for working with documents. Updating these modules is separate and does not make any inconvenience. The main joint in 1C is a command mode of operation using the repository. Grabs, kickbacks and other inconveniences are guaranteed. Open source, lying in different files here wins. The only thing that you shouldn't forget is that this method worked for itself on platform 7.7, where you could insert a link to a file into a module and dynamically change it (no reloads were required)

3. Customization

This is the beginning of a mortal battle for those who shout that if any configuration changes, you will get tired of paying money for the update, and those who consider these expenses not worth attention. Basically, everyone swears at the complexity of the 1C interface, they say there are a lot of buttons and throwing on the menus, but the creation of a new interface is the removal of the konfa with full support and money for the update. Here, I think, 1Snikov has no problems, from the word ALL. After all, you can create your own version of the desktop in processing and in the launch of 1C point to this processing. The user clicked on the 1C shortcut and when launched he received his documents and reports right in one window. The second option is available on recent releases of 8.3 and is an add-on to the configuration, which is stored on the user's computer and starts with the main config. Everything is supported, everyone is happy.

4. The rest

Do not forget that 1C provides exactly the business logic-oriented programming language and for programmers of the same C looks wildly strange. Although what can I say, still the vast majority of programmers do not understand how to write programs in Russian. Yes, in some places it is overloaded and incomprehensible without half a liter, but it’s not for nothing that developers eat their own bread and many methods simply save the 1C programmer from the routine (sections of the first and last, repressed wage calculations, and so on).

The 1C engine is quite smart when working with data, suffers in some places and requires optimization, but now even with large amounts of data, users do not complain.

Findings:

1. If an enterprise has its own work logic, different from the presentation of 1C methodologists, and it is not related to the delivery of regulated reporting to the state, then any solutions are possible both on the basis of 1C (due to the presence of a large number of programmers), as well as in any other languages and platforms. The main thing is for someone to support this decision.
2. Many critics of typical 1C products did not themselves see this decision and simply believe the opinion of an older comrade or read on the Internet.
3. Industry solutions and code quality control are the main problems of 1C, which gives a lot of negative reviews.