JOG wrote in

m:

I certainly don't think developers should excuse sloppy RDBMS
design just because they are using access (and of course I'm sure
many of the professionals here wouldn't dream of doing so, despite
others laxness).

What *are* you talking about?

Any mistakes in schema design that you can make in Access, you can
make in any other RDBMS.

I would agree that there are many places that the wizards in Access
and the sample databases encourage sub-optimal practices. But most
professional developers aren't using either wizards or the sample
databases as their models for developing their own applications.

If your impression of Access comes from futzing with it for 10
minutes and from encountering kludged-together apps created by your
company receptionist, then you just haven't a clue what Access
offers, either as an application development platform or as a data
store (using its native Jet engine).

This is a schema question, and that is orthogonal to Access, because
Access is an application development platform. If you use Jet for
your data store, then Jet is relevant to the discussion. But you can
use any data store that offers an ISAM or ADO or ODBC drivers, and
that means all your schema issues are completely divorced from
Access itself.

That you can't seem to keep this distinction clear in your mentions
of Access demonstrates pretty clearly that you are completely
clueless about Access and really aren't in any position to be making
disparaging comments about it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/