On Jan 28, 11:35 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
JOG wrote
m:



On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
JOG wrote

ps.co 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.

*Sigh*. Yes, but as bob has pointed out, you've misconstrued my
point. Because it is marketed at different business problems (ones
with few concurrent users, simple domains, comparatively smaller
schema), a lot of Access users can get away with mistakes that
someone using, say, Oracle 11g to keep track of millions of facts
would in the end get called up on. So that's nothing to do with
the technology, just the market, which makes your empassioned
defence of the super-duper jetomatic engine a bit misplaced.

I'm not defending Jet here. I'm pointing out a logical error in your
attributing to "Access" something that has nothing specifically to
do with Access.

So the way the Access product is marketed has nothing to do with
Access? Genius David You could of course read through the original
point again, and well, actually read what it said, rather than just
imagining what you want it to say to keep your indignation going.

It said nothing about schema, engines, or RM. Just that db's which
employ Access _on average_ tend to be smaller, handle less data, less
updating, etc, (because that's the market MS aims the product at) and
so any mistakes are _on average_ less likely to be as deleterious, or
may never even be highlighted at all.

Its fine to disagree, but for you to completely misunderstand such a
simple statement as an attack on Access, well, its frankly all a bit
embarrassing.


I'll also ignore the diatribe that followed in light of your
misunderstanding. (And the fact that you share my mother's maiden
name, so may well be long distant family...).

I do not misunderstand. You clearly are not distinguishing a
development platform (Access) from a database engine (Jet) and from
the fact that the issue at hand is a schem design question, and has
nothing whatsoever to do with Access, or with any particular
database engine.

That you can't seem to keep this distinction straight in your posts
shows one of two things:

1. massive ignorance of the tools you are disparaging

There is nothing disparaging in saying Access is aimed at a different
market to Oracle's tools. I am suprised you would think that.


2. extremely bad writing skills.

Of maybe it's some of both.

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