Is this supposed to pass as documentation? Looking at that document the first reaction is that I would rather spend a decade implementing my own ERP than go anywhere near that mess.
I get that a list of tables and fields is not great documentation by itself, but QAD also provides ERD diagrams, implementation guides, user guides, administrative guides, and other documents. The overall quality of their documentation is outstanding. I worked in a QAD shop for over ten years, and their documentation is complete, accurate, well organized, and easy to understand.
This looks ... terrible. I bet it works and delivers value or something, but that doesn't mean it's something to be proud of or to defend how it's designed.
I mean surely there is a better way than thousands of database tables ... with separate business logic.
Do I understand correctly that for a "small to medium" business, they would only use a fraction of the functionality / database tables, but in order to support all potential "small to medium" businesses, it needs to be this convoluted mess?
https://documentlibrary.qad.com/documents/2370665/2368142/Da...
This is a product designed for small to medium sized businesses so it is not as comprehensive as a SAP. Take a serious look at the schema and imagine if you just had to write CRUD, it would take hundreds of man years. But it is not a CRUD app because there is business logic behind ever module.
Now imagine that there is also a whole ecosystem of vendors that sit under the QAD tree to provide niche solutions for the various use cases not covered by QAD. So not only do you have to write the ERP, but you have to write the pieces picked up by the other vendors in this ecosystem.